EVAN  L  REESE 


SHAKESPEARE'S    LOST    YEARS 

IN    LONDON 

1586-1592 


SHAKESPEARE'S 

LOST   YEARS    IN   LONDON 

1586-1592 


Giving  new  light  on  the  pre-Sonnet  period  ;  showing 

the  inception  of  relations  between  Shakespeare 

and  the  Earl  of  Southampton 

and  displaying 

JOHN   FLORIO 


AS 


SIR  JOHN    FALSTAFF 


BY 


ARTHUR   ACHESON 

AUTHOR  OF  "SHAKESPEARE  AND  THE  RIVAL  POET  ' 

"  MISTRESS   DAVENANT,   THE   DARK   LADY   OF    THE  SONNETS  "   ETC. 


NEW    YORK 
BRENTANO'S 

1920 


All  rights  reserved 


TO    MY    SONS 

ARTHUR   MURRAY  ACHESON 

AND 

ALEXANDER   G.  ACHESON 

I   DEDICATE  THIS  VOLUME 


901582 


"THE  purpose  of  playing,  whose  end,  both  at 
the  first  and  now,  was,  and  is,  to  hold,  as 
'twere,  the  mirror  up  to  nature  ;  to  show  virtue 
her  own  feature,  scorn  her  own  image,  and 
the  very  age  and  body  of  the  time  his  form 
and  pressure." 

Hamlet,  Act  ill.  Scene  ii. 


CONTENTS 


CHAP.  PA(iK 

I.  INTRODUCTORY          ......       i 

II.  THE  STRATFORD  DAYS,  1564-1586  .  .  .  .19 

III.  SHAKESPEARE,  THE  BURBAGES,  AND  EDWARD  ALLEYN, 

1586-1591  .......      38 

IV.  SHAKESPEARE  AND  THE  EARL  OF  PEMBROKE'S  COMPANY, 

1591-1594 .72 

V.  SHAKESPEARE  AND  THE  SCHOLARS,  1588-1592     .  .      90 

VI.  THE  POLITICAL  PURPOSE  OF  KING  JOHN,  1591-1592      .    131 

VII.  INCEPTION  OF  THE  FRIENDSHIP  BETWEEN  SHAKESPEARE 

AND  THE  EARL  OF  SOUTHAMPTON,  1591-1594         .    150 

VIII.  JOHN  FLORIO  AS  SIR  JOHN  FALSTAFF'S  ORIGINAL         .    181 

APPENDIX— 

1.  Dedication  of  Florio's  Second  Fruites^  1591       .        .     223 

2.  Address  to  the  Reader  from  Florio's  Second  Fruites^ 

1591 •        .        -        .229 

3.  Dedication  of  Florio's  Worlde  of  Wordes^  1598         .    233 

4.  Address   to  the   Reader  from   Florio's    Worlde  of 

Wordes,  1598       .        .        .        .        .        .         .242 

5.  John  Florio's  Will,  1625 252 

INDEX 257 


SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST  YEARS 
IN  LONDON 

1586-1592 


CHAPTER   I 
INTRODUCTORY 


T 


f  •  ^HE  most  interesting  and  important  fifteen  years  in 
the  records  of  English  dramatic  literature  are  un- 
doubtedly those  between  1588  and  1603,  within 
which  limit  all  of  Shakespeare's  poems  and  the  majority 
of  his  plays  were  written ;  yet  no  exhaustive  English  history, 
intelligently  co-ordinating  the  social,  literary,  and  political 
life  of  this  period,  has  ever  been  written. 

Froude,  the  keynote  of  whose  historical  work  is  contained 
in  his  assertion  that  "the  Reformation  was  the  root  and 
source  of  the  expansive  force  which  has  spread  the  Anglo- 
Saxon  race  over  the  globe,"  recognising  a  logical  and 
dramatic  climax  for  his  argument  in  the  defeat  of  the 
Spanish  Armada  in  1588,  ends  his  history  in  that  year; 
while  Gardiner,  whose  historical  interest  was  as  much 
absorbed  by  the  Puritan  Revolution  as  was  Fronde's  by 
the  Reformation,  finds  a  fitting  beginning  for  his  subject  in 
the  accession  of  James  I.  in  1603.  Thus  an  historical  hiatus 
is  left  which  has  never  been  exhaustively  examined.  To  the 


2      SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST  YEARS 

resulting  lack  of  a  clearly  defined  historical  background  for 
those  years  on  the  part  of  Shakespearean  critics  and  com- 
pilers— who  are  not  as  a  rule  also  students  of  original  sources 
of  history — may  be  imputed  much  of  the  haziness  which  still 
exists  regarding  Shakespeare's  relations  to,  and  the  manner 
in  which  his  work  may  have  been  influenced  by,  the  literary, 
social,  and  political  life  of  this  period. 

The  defeat  of  the  Armada  ended  a  long  period  of  threat- 
ened danger  for  England,  and  the  following  fifteen  years  of 
Elizabeth's  reign  were  passed  in  comparative  security.  The 
social  life  of  London  and  the  Court  now  took  on,  by  com- 
parison with  the  troubled  past,  an  almost  Augustan  phase. 
During  these  years  poetry  and  the  drama  flourished  in 
England  as  they  never  did  before,  or  since,  in  any  such  space 
of  time.  Within  a  few  years  of  the  beginning  of  this  time 
Shakespeare  became  the  principal  writer  for,  and  later  on  a 
sharer  in,  a  company  of  players  which,  at  about  the  same 
time,  was  chosen  as  the  favourite  Court  company ;  a  position 
which — under  various  titles — it  continued  to  hold  thereafter- 
wards  for  over  forty  years. 

When  we  compare  the  plays  of  Shakespeare  with  those 
of  his  contemporaries  and  immediate  successors,  it  becomes 
evident  that  this  dominant  position  was  maintained  by  his 
company  largely  through  the  superior  merit  of  his  work 
while  he  lived,  and  by  the  prestige  he  had  attained  for  it 
after  he  had  passed  away. 

In  the  time  of  Elizabeth  the  stage  was  recognised  as  one 
of  the  principal  vehicles  for  the  reflection  of  opinion  con- 
cerning matters  of  public  interest ;  the  players  being,  in 
Shakespeare's  phrase,  "  the  abstract  and  brief  chronicles  of 
the  time."  The  fact  that  laws  were  passed  and  Orders  in 
Council  issued  prohibiting  the  representation  of  matters 


INTRODUCTORY  3 

of  Church  or  State  upon  the  stage,  clearly  implies  the  pre- 
valence of  such  representations.  It  is  altogether  unlikely 
that  the  most  popular  dramatist  of  the  day  should,  in 
this  phase  of  his  art,  have  remained  an  exception  to  the 
rule. 

I  hold  it  to  have  been  impossible  that  such  an  ardent 
Englishman  as  Shakespeare,  one  also  so  deeply  interested 
in  human  motive,  character,  and  action,  should  have  lived 
during  these  fifteen  years  in  the  heart  of  English  literary 
and  political  life, — coming,  through  his  professional  interests, 
frequently  and  closely  in  contact  with  certain  of  its  central 
figures, — and  should  during  this  interval  have  written  twenty 
original  plays,  three  long  poems,  and  over  one  hundred  and 
fifty  sonnets,  without  leaving  in  this  work  decipherable 
reflections  of  the  characters  and  movements  of  his  time. 
That  these  conscious,  or  unconscious,  reflections  have  not 
long  ago  been  recognised  and  interpreted  I  impute  to 
the  lack  of  an  intimate  knowledge  of  contemporary 
history  on  the  part  of  the  majority  of  his  critics  and 
biographers. 

Competent  text  critics,  in  their  efforts  to  establish  the 
chronological  order  of  the  dramas,  have  long  since  displayed 
the  facts  that  Shakespeare's  earlier  original  plays  were  largely 
comedies  of  a  joyous  nature,  and  that,  as  the  years  pass,  his 
work  becomes  more  serious  and  philosophical ;  in  time 
developing  into  the  pessimistic  bitterness  of  Lear  and 
Timon  of  Athens,  but  softening  and  lightening,  at  the  end 
of  his  career,  in  the  gravely  reflective  but  kindly  mood 
of  Cymbeline>  A  Winter's  Tale,  and  The  Tempest ;  yet  no 
serious  attempt  has  ever  been  made  to  trace  and  demonstrate 
in  the  personal  contact  of  the  writer  with  concurrent  life  the 
underlying  spiritual  causes  of  these  very  palpable  changes  in 


4      SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

his  expression   of  it.     Until  this  is  done  no  adequate   life 
of  Shakespeare  can  be  written.1 

Now,  in  order  to  be  enabled  to  find  in  Shakespeare's 
personal  observation  and  experience  the  well-springs  of  the 
plainly  developing  and  deepening  reflections  of  human  life  in 
action,  so  evident  in  his  dramas  when  studied  chronologically, 
a  sound  knowledge  of  contemporary  social,  literary,  and 
political  history  is  the  first  essential ;  possessing  this,  the 
serious  student  will  soon  realise  in  the  likenesses  between 
Shakespeare's  dramatic  expression,  and  his  concurrent 
possibilities  of  observation  and  experience,  that  he  portrayed 
life  as  he  himself  saw  and  felt  it,  and  that  he  used  the  old 
and  hackneyed  stories  and  chronicles  which  he  selected  for 
his  plots,  not  because  he  lacked  the  power  of  dramatic 
construction,  but  in  order  to  hide  the  underlying  purposes 
of  his  plays  from  the  public  censor.  While  no  intelligent 
student  needs  any  other  warrant  for  this  belief  than  the 
plays  themselves,  when  chronologically  co-ordinated  with 
even  an  elementary  knowledge  of  the  history  of  the  period, 
we  have  Shakespeare's  own  assertion  that  this  was  the 
actual  method  and  spirit  of  his  work.  When  he  tells  us  in 
Hamlet  that  "  the  purpose  of  playing,  whose  end,  both  at  the 
first  and  now,  was,  and  is,  to  hold,  as  'twere,  the  mirror  up  to 
nature;  to  show  virtue  her  own  feature,  scorn  her  own 
image,  and  the  very  age  and  body  of  the  time  his  form  and 
pressure,"  he  is  not  attempting  to  describe  the  dramatic 
methods  of  ancient  Denmark,  but  is  definitely  expounding 

1  Dr.  Georg  Brandes'  William  Shakespeare :  A  Critical  Study,  is  by  far  the 
best  attempt  at  an  interpretation  of  Shakespeare's  plays  upon  spiritual  lines  that 
has  yet  been  made ;  but  the  biographical  value  of  this  excellent  analysis  is  in- 
volved by  the  fact  that  Dr.  Brandes,  at  the  time  he  wrote, — now  over  thirty  years 
ago, — accepted  Thomas  Tyler's  Pembroke- Fitton  theory  of  the  sonnets,  and  with 
it  the  distorted  chronology  for  the  plays  of  the  Sonnet  period,  which  it  necessarily 
involves. 


INTRODUCTORY  5 

the  functions  of  dramatic  exposition  as  they  prevailed  in 
actual  use  in  his  own  day,  and  as  he  himself  had  then 
exercised  them  for  over  ten  years. 

Any  attempt  to  visualise  Shakespeare  in  his  contemporary 
environment,  and  spiritually  to  link  his  work  year  by  year 
with  the  life  of  his  time,  would  be  impossible  unless  there 
can  first  be  attained  a  far  clearer  idea  than  now  exists  of  his 
theatrical  connections,  the  inception  of  his  dramatic  work, 
and  of  the  literary  and  social  affiliations  he  formed  and 
antagonisms  he  aroused,  during  his  first  six  or  eight  years  in 
London.  The  purpose  of  this  book  is — by  casting  new 
light  upon  this  period  of  Shakespeare's  career — to  show  the 
inception  and  development  of  conditions  and  influences 
which  continued  from  that  time  forward  materially  to  affect 
his  and  his  friends'  lives,  and  in  turn  to  shape  and  colour  the 
expression  of  life  in  action  which  he  gives  us  in  his  works. 

Though  there  is  nothing  known  definitely  concerning 
Shakespeare  between  1587 — when  his  name  is  mentioned 
in  a  legal  document  at  Stratford  regarding  the  transfer  of 
property  in  which  he  held  a  contingent  interest  and  which 
possibly  infers  his  presence  in  Stratford  at  that  date — and 
1592,  when  Robert  Greene  alludes  to  him  in  his  posthumously 
published  A  Groatsworth  of  Wit,  it  is  usually  assumed  that 
he  left  Stratford  in  1586  or  1587  with  a  company  of  players, 
or  else  that  he  joined  a  company  in  London  at  about  that 
time. 

As  the  Earl  of  Leicester's  company  is  recorded  as  having 
visited  Stratford-upon-Avon  in  1587,  —  some  time  before 
I4th  June, — and  as  James  Burbage,  the  father  of  Richard 
Burbage,  with  whom  we  find  Shakespeare  closely  affiliated 
in  later  years,  was  manager  of  the  Earl  of  Leicester's  company 
as  late  as  1575, — the  year  before  he  built  the  Theatre  at 


6      SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

Shoreditch,  —  it  is  generally  assumed  that  he  was  still 
manager  of  this  company  in  1586-87,  and  that  Shakespeare 
became  connected  with  him  by  joining  Leicester's  company 
at  this  time.  This  assumption  is,  however,  somewhat  involved 
by  another,  nebulously  held  by  some  critics,  i.e.>  that  James 
Burbage  severed  his  connection  with  Leicester's  company  in 
1583,  and  joined  the  Queen's  company,  and  that  the  latter 
company  played  under  his  management  at  the  Theatre  in 
Shoreditch  for  several  years  afterwards.  It  is  further 
involved  by  the  equally  erroneous  assumption  that  Burbage 
managed  the  Curtain  along  with  the  Theatre  between  1585 
and  I592.1 

Certain  biographical  compilers  also  assert  that  Shake- 
speare, having  joined  the  Earl  of  Leicester's  company, 
continued  to  be  connected  with  it  under  its  supposed  vary- 
ing titles  until  the  end  of  his  London  career,  and  that  he 
was  never  associated  with  any  other  company.  They 
assume  that  Leicester's  company  merged  with  Lord  Strange's 
company  of  acrobats  in  1589,  the  combination  becoming 
known  as  Lord  Strange's  players ;  and  that  when  this 
company  left  James  Burbage  and  the  Theatre,  in  1 592,  for 
Philip  Henslowe  and  the  Rose  Theatre,  that  Shakespeare 
accompanied  them  and  worked  for  Henslowe  both  as  a 
writer  and  an  actor.  They  suppose  that  Edward  Alleyn 
became  the  manager  of  a  combination  of  the  Admiral's 
company  and  Strange's  men  for  a  "  short  period,"  but  that 
the  companies  "  soon  parted,"  "  Strange's  men  continuing 
with  Henslowe  for  a  prolonged  period."  2  It  is  also  asserted 
that  "  the  Rose  Theatre  was  the  first  scene  of  Shakespeare's 
successes  alike  as  an  actor  and  a  dramatist,"  and  that  he 

1 A  Life  of  William  Shakespeare ,  by  Sir  Sidney  Lee,  1916,  p.  59. 
*  Ibid.  61. 


INTRODUCTORY  7 

"helped  in  the  authorship  of  The  First  Part  of  Henry  VI., 
with  which  Lord  Strange's  company  scored  a  triumphant 
success  in  I592."1 

These  assumptions,  which  were  advanced  tentatively  by 
former  scholars  and  merely  as  working  hypotheses,  have 
now,  by  repetition  and  the  dogmatic  dicta  of  biographical 
compilers,  come  to  be  accepted  by  the  uncritical  as 
ascertained  facts. 

While  it  is  now  generally  accepted  that  Greene's  "  Shake- 
scene  "  alludes  to  Shakespeare,  and  that  his  parody  of  a  line 
from  The  True  Tragedie: 

"  O  Tyger's  heart  wrapt  in  a  Player's  hide  " 

denotes  some  connection  of  Shakespeare's  with  either  The 
True  Tragedie  of  the  Duke  of  York>  or  with  The  Third  Part 
of  Henry  VI.  before  September  1592,  when  Greene  died, 
and  while  the  title-page  of  the  first  issue  of  The  True 
Tragedie  of  the  Duke  of  York  informs  us  that  this  play  was 
acted  by  the  Earl  of  Pembroke's  company,  and  no  mention 
of  the  play  appears  in  the  records  of  Henslowe,  under 
whose  financial  management  Shakespeare  is  supposed  to 
have  been  working  with  Strange's  company  in  1592,  nothing 
has  ever  been  done  to  elucidate  Shakespeare's  evident  connection 
with  this  play  or  with  the  Earl  of  Pembroke's  company  at  this 
period. 

In  the  same  year — 1592 — Nashe  refers  to  the  performance 
by  Lord  Strange's  company  under  Henslowe  of  The  First 
Part  of  Henry  F/.,  and  praises  the  work  of  the  dramatist 
who  had  recently  incorporated  the  Talbot  scenes,  which  are 
plainly  the  work  of  a  different  hand  from  the  bulk  of  the 
remainder  of  the  play.  This  also  is  generally  accepted  as  a 

1  A  Life  of  William  Shakespeare,  by  Sir  Sidney  Lee,  1916,  pp.  61,  55. 


8      SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

reference  to  Shakespeare  and  as  indicating  his  connection 
with  Henslowe  as  a  writer  for  the  stage.  It  is  erroneously 
inferred  from  this  supposed  evidence,  and  from  the  fact  that 
Richard  Burbage  was  with  Strange's  company  in  1592,  that 
Shakespeare  also  acted  with  and  wrote  for  this  company 
under  Henslowe. 

No  explanation  has  ever  been  given  for  the  palpable  fact 
that  not  one  of  the  plays  written  by  Shakespeare — the  com- 
position of  which  all  competent  text  critics  impute  to  the 
years  1591  to  1594 — is  mentioned  in  Henslowe's  Diary  as 
having  been  presented  upon  his  boards.  It  is  generally 
agreed  that  The  Comedy  of  Errors,  King  John,  Richard  II., 
Love's  Labours  Lost,  Loves  Labours  Won,  The  Two  Gentlemen 
of  Verona,  Richard  III.,  and  Midsummer  Night s  Dream,  were 
all  produced  before  the  end  of  1594,  yet  there  is  no  record 
nor  mention  of  any  one  of  these  plays  in  Henslowe's  Diary, 
which  gives  a  very  full  list  of  the  performances  at  the  Rose 
and  the  plays  presented  between  1592  and  1594. 

During  the  same  years  in  which  records  of  Shakespeare 
are  lacking1  they  are  also  very  limited  regarding  Edward 
Alleyn,  whose  reputation  as  an  actor  and  whose  leadership 
in  his  profession  were  won  during  these  years — 1586-92. 
Nothing  is  at  present  known  concerning  him  between  1584, 
when  he  is  mentioned  in  the  Leicester  records  as  a  member 
of  the  Earl  of  Worcester's  company,  and  3rd  January  1589, 
when  he  bought  Richard  Jones'  share  of  theatrical  properties, 
owned  conjointly  by  Edward  Alleyn,  John  Alleyn,  Robert 
Browne,  and  Richard  Jones,  As  Edward  Alleyn,  Robert 
Browne,  and  Richard  Jones  were  all  members  of  Worcester's 
company  in  1584,  it  is  erroneously  assumed  that  they  were 

1  "Between  1586  and  1592  we  lose  all  trace  of  Shakespeare."     William 
Shakespeare:  A  Critical  Study,  Georg  Brand  es,  p.  18. 


INTRODUCTORY  9 

still  Worcester's  men  in  1589,  and  that  it  was  Jones'  share  in 
the  Worcester  properties  that  Alleyn  bought  at  this  time 
to  take  with  him  to  the  Admiral's  company,  which  he  is 
consequently  supposed  to  have  joined  some  time  between 
1589  and  1592.  The  next  record  we  have  of  Alleyn  is  his 
marriage  to  Joan  Woodward,  Henslowe's  stepdaughter,  in 
October  1592.  In  the  following  May  we  find  him  managing 
Lord  Strange's  company  in  the  provinces,  though  styling 
himself  a  Lord  Admiral's  man.  Where,  then,  was  Edward 
Alleyn  between  1585  and  1589;  where  between  1589  and 
J593>  &nd  when  did  he  become  a  Lord  Admiral's  man? 

Worcester's  company,  with  which  Alleyn  was  connected 
in  1584,  is  last  mentioned  in  the  records  as  appearing  at 
Barnstaple  in  I585;1  it  then  disappears  from  view  for  five 
years,  and  is  next  mentioned  in  the  provincial  records  as 
appearing  at  Coventry  in  I59O.2  Between  1590  and  1603  it 
is  mentioned  regularly  in  the  provincial  records.  Where 
was  Worcester's  company  between  1585  and  1590? 

I  propose  to  demonstrate  by  new  evidence  and  analysis 
that  James  Burbage  ceased  to  be  an  active  member  of 
Leicester's  company  soon  after  he  took  on  the  responsi- 
bilities of  the  management  of  the  Theatre ;  but  continued 
his  theatrical  employees  under  Leicester's  protection  as 
Lord  Leicester's  musicians  until  1582,  when  he  began  to 
work  under  the  licence  of  Lord  Hunsdon,  his  company  being 
composed  of  his  own  employees  and  largely  of  musicians, 
to  act  as  an  adjunct  to  the  companies  to  whom,  from  time 
to  time,  he  let  the  use  of  the  Theatre  during  the  absence  in 
the  provinces  of  the  companies,  such  as  Leicester's  and  the 

1  English  Dramatic  Companies,  1558-1641,  vol.  i.  p.  57.     By  John  Tucker 
Murray. 


10     SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

Admiral's,  with  which  I  shall  give  evidence  he  held  more 
permanent  affiliations,  and,  seeing  that  he  was  owner  and 
manager  of  the  Theatre,  that  these  affiliations  were  some- 
what similar  to  those  maintained  by  Henslowe — the  owner 
of  the  Rose  Theatre — with  Lord  Strange's  company  between 
1592  and  1594,  and  with  the  Lord  Admiral's,  and  other 
companies,  at  the  several  theatres  he  controlled  in  later 
years.  I  shall  indicate  that  from  the  time  Burbage  built 
the  Theatre  in  1576  until  early  in  1585,  he  maintained  such 
a  connection  with  Leicester's  company,  and  shall  show  that 
the  disruption  of  this  company  in  1585  by  the  departure  of 
seven  of  their  principal  members  for  the  Continent — where 
they  remained  until  July  1587 — necessitated  a  similar  con- 
nection with  some  other  good  company  to  take  its  place,  and 
that  he  now  secured  Edward  Alleyn  and  his  fellows,  who, 
ceasing  to  be  Worcester's  men  at  this  time,  and  securing  the 
licence  of  the  Lord  Admiral,  affiliated  themselves  with  the 
remnant  of  Leicester's  men  and  joined  Burbage  and  Lord 
Hunsdon's  men  at  the  Theatre.  In  this  year  the  latter 
became  the  Lord  Chamberlain's  men  through  the  elevation 
of  Lord  Hunsdon  to  that  office.  These  companies,  while 
retaining  individual  licences,  continued  to  play  when  in 
London  as  one  company  until  the  end  of  1588,  or  beginning 
of  1589,  when  another  reorganisation  took  place,  a  number 
of  the  old  men  being  eliminated  and  new  blood  being  taken 
in  from  the  restored  Leicester  company  and  Lord  Strange's 
company  of  youthful  acrobats,  who  had  now  become  men. 
I  shall  give  evidence  that  this  organisation  continued  to 
work  as  one  company  for  the  next  three  years,  though  the 
Admiral's  men  still  retained  their  own  licence,  and  con- 
sequently that  the  company  as  a  whole  is  at  times  mentioned 
in  both  Court  and  provincial  records  under  one  title  and  at 


INTRODUCTORY  11 

times  under  the  other.  The  principal  reason  that  a  number 
of  companies,  combining  at  a  London  theatre  as  one  com- 
pany, preserved  their  several  licences  was  no  doubt  the 
greater  protection  afforded  them  by  the  patronage  of 
several  powerful  noblemen  against  the  hostility  of  puri- 
tanically inclined  municipal  authorities.  Recorder  Fleet- 
wood,  who  was  noted  as  an  enemy  of  the  players,  in  his 
weekly  reports  on  civic  affairs  to  Lord  Burghley,  frequently 
complains  of  the  stoppage  by  Court  influence  of  his  prosecu- 
tions of  alleged  offenders.  Upon  one  occasion  he  writes : 
"  When  the  Court  is  farthest  from  London  then  is  the  best 
justice  done  in  England." 

Some  time  between  the  beginning  of  1591  and  the  end  of 
that  year,  James  Burbage's  disfavour  with  certain  of  the 
authorities,  as  well  as  legal  and  financial  difficulties  in  which 
he  became  involved,  made  it  necessary  for  the  combined 
companies,  which  in  December  1591  had  attained  to  the 
position  of  the  favourite  Court  company,  to  seek  more  con- 
venient quarters  and  stronger  financial  backing  than  Burbage 
and  the  Theatre  afforded.  Under  its  various  titles  Strange's 
company  continued  to  be  the  leading  Court  company  for 
the  next  forty  years.  I  shall  indicate  the  probability  that 
Strange's  company  in  supplanting  the  Queen's  company  at 
Court  at  this  time  also  supplanted  it  at  the  Rose  Theatre^ 
which  was  built  by  Henslowe  in  1587  as  a  theatre.1  Hens- 
lowe  repaired  and  reconstructed  it  late  in  1591  and  early 
in  1592  for  the  uses  of  Strange's  men.  I  will  show  the 
unlikelihood  that  this  was  Henslowe's  first  venture  in 
theatrical  affairs,  and  the  probability  that  the  Queen's 
players,  under  his  financial  management,  occupied  the  Rose 

1  It  is  probable  that  previous  to  1587  the  Rose  was  an  inn  used  for  theatrical 
purposes. 


12     SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

Theatre  from  the  time  it  was  built  in  1587  until  they  were 
superseded  by  Strange's  men  in  1591. 

I  shall  also  give  evidence  that  Shakespeare  did  not 
accompany  Strange's  men  to  Henslowe  and  the  Rose,  but 
that  he  remained  with  Burbage,  who  backed  him  in  the 
formation  of  Pembroke's  company,  and  that  he  and  Marlowe 
wrote  for  this  company  until  Marlowe  was  killed  in  1593, 
and  that  Shakespeare  was  probably  its  sole  provider  of 
plays  from  the  time  of  Marlowe's  death  until  the  company 
disrupted  early  in  1594.  I  shall  show  further  that  during 
the  time  Shakespeare  and  Marlowe  wrote  for  Pembroke's 
company,  and  for  some  years  later,  George  Peele  revised  old 
and  wrote  new  plays  for  Henslowe  and  Alleyn,  and  that  it 
was  he  that  revised  Henry  VI.  and  introduced  the  Talbot 
scene  in  1592,  and  consequently  that  it  was  to  Peele,  and 
not  to  Shakespeare,  that  Nashe's  praises  were  given  at  this 
time.  Evidence  shall  be  given  to  show  that  Nashe  was 
antagonistic  to  Shakespeare  and  co-operated  with  Greene 
against  him  at  this  period. 

It  shall  be  made  clear  that  Titus  Andronicus^  which  was 
acted  as  a  new  play  by  Sussex's  company  under  Henslowe 
on  23rd  January  1594,  was  also  written  by  Peele,  or  re- 
written from  Titus  and  Vespasian,  which  is  now  lost,  but 
which — being  written  for  Strange's  men  in  the  previous 
year — we  may  assume  was  also  Peele's,  or  else  his  first 
revision  of  a  still  older  play. 

Some  time  before  the  middle  of  1594  a  new  reorganisa- 
tion of  companies  took  place,  the  Admiral's  and  the  Lord 
Chamberlain's  separating  and  absorbing  men  from  Pem- 
broke's and  Sussex's  companies,  which  ceased  to  exist  as 
active  entities  at  this  time,  though  a  portion  of  Pembroke's 
men — while  working  with  the  Admiral's  men  between  1594 


INTRODUCTORY  13 

and  1597 — retained  their  own  licence  and  attempted  to 
operate  separately  in  the  latter  year,  but,  failing,  returned 
to  Henslowe  and  became  Admiral's  men.  A  few  of  their 
members  whom  Langley,  the  manager  of  the  Swan  Theatre, 
had  taken  from  them,  struggled  on  as  Pembroke's  men  for  a 
year  or  two  and  finally  disappeared  from  the  records. 

A  consideration  of  the  affairs  of  Lord  Strange's  men — 
now  the  Lord  Chamberlain's  men — while  under  Henslowe's 
financial  management  between  1592  and  1594,  and  of  Pem- 
broke's company's  circumstances  during  the  same  period, 
with  their  enforced  provincial  tours  owing  to  the  plague 
in  London,  will  show  that  these  were  lean  years  for  both 
organisations,  and  for  the  men  composing  them;  yet  in 
December  1594 — as  is  shown  by  the  Court  records  of  March 
1 595 — Shakespeare  appears  as  a  leading  sharer  in  one  of  the 
most  important  theatrical  companies  in  England.  I  shall 
advance  evidence  to  show  that  his  position  in  this  powerful 
company,  and  its  apparent  prosperity  at  this  time,  were 
due  to  financial  assistance  accorded  him  in  1594  by  his 
patron,  the  Earl  of  Southampton,  to  whom  in  this  year 
he  dedicated  Lucrece>  and  in  the  preceding  year  Venus  and 
Adonis. 

If  these  hypotheses  be  demonstrated  it  shall  appear  that 
though  Shakespeare,  as  Burbage's  employee  in  the  conduct 
of  the  Theatre,  had  theatrical  relations  with  the  Earl  of 
Leicester's  company  that  he  was  not  a  member  of  that 
company,  and  that  if  he  may  be  regarded  as  having  become 
a  member  of  any  company  in  1586-87,  when  he  came  to 
London,  he  was  a  member  of  the  Lord  Chamberlain's 
company, — which  was  owned  by  James  Burbage, — but  as  a 
bonded  and  hired  servant  or  servitor  to  James  Burbage  for 
a  term  of  years  which  ended  in  about  1589;  that  his  work 


14     SHAKESPEARE'S  LOST  YEARS 

with  Burbage  from  the  time  he  entered  his  service  was  of  a 
general  nature,  and  more  of  a  literary  and  dramatic  than  of 
an  histrionic  character,  though  it  undoubtedly  partook  of  both  ; 
that  he  worked  in  conjunction  with  both  Richard  Burbage 
and  Edward  Alleyn  from  the  time  he  came  to  London  in 
1586-87  until  1591 ;  that  neither  he  nor  Burbage  were  con- 
nected with  the  Queen's  company,  nor  with  the  Curtain 
Theatre,  during  these  years,  and  that  the  ownership  by  the 
Burbage  organisation  of  a  number  of  old  Queeris  plays 
resulted  from  their  absorption  of  Queeris  men  in  I59i>  when 
Pembroke^  company  was  formed^  and  not  from  the  supposed 
fact  that  James  Burbage  was  at  any  time  a  member  or  the 
manager  of  the  Queeris  company ;  that  Robert  Greene's  attack 
upon  Shakespeare  as  "  the  onely  Shake-scene,"  in  1 592,  was 
directed  at  him  as  the  manager  of  Pembroke's  company; 
that  the  Rose  Theatre  was  not  "  the  scene  of  Shakespeare's 
pronounced  success,  both  as  a  writer  and  a  dramatist,"  and 
that  in  fact  he  never  was  connected  with  that  theatre^  nor  with 
Henslowe>  either  as  a  writer  or  an  actor  \  that  Nashe's  lauda- 
tion of  the  Talbot  scenes  in  Henry  VL  was  complimentary 
to  his  friend  Peele,  and  that  whatever  additions  Shakespeare 
may  have  made  to  this  play  were  made  after  he  rejoined 
the  Lord  Chamberlain's  men  in  1594;  that  he  had  no  hand 
in  the  composition  of  Titus  Andronicus>  acted  by  Sussex's 
company  and  published  in  1594,  which  is  the  same  as  that 
now  generally  included  in  Shakespeare's  plays ;  and  finally 
that  his  business  ability  and  social  and  dramatic  prestige 
restored  Burbage's  waning  fortunes  and  enabled  his  new 
organisation  to  compete  successfully  with  the  superior 
political  favour  and  financial  power  of  Henslowe  and  Alleyn, 
and  started  it  upon  its  prolonged  career  of  Court  and  public 
favour. 


INTRODUCTORY  15 

As  a  clear  conception  of  Shakespeare's  theatrical  affilia- 
tions between  1586  and  1594  has  not  hitherto  been  realised 
so  a  knowledge  of  his  relations  with  contemporary  writers 
during  his  entire  career  still  remains  nebulous.  Greene's 
attack  in  1592  in  A  Groatsworth  of  Wit  and  Chettle's 
apology  are  the  only  things  Regarding  Shakespeare's  early 
relations  with  other  writers  that  have  been  generally 
accepted  by  critics.  Until  the  publication  of  Shakespeare 
and  the  Rival  Poet  in  1903,  nothing  was  known  of  his  pro- 
longed enmity  with  Chapman  ;  while  the  name  of  Matthew 
Roy  don  was  unmentioned  in  connection  with  Shakespearean 
affairs  until  19 13.*  The  revelations  of  the  present  volume 
regarding  the  enmity  between  Florio  and  Shakespeare,  and 
Shakespeare's  dramatic  characterisations  of  Florio,  have 
never  been  anticipated,  though  the  possibility  that  they  may 
have  come  at  odds  has  been  apprehended.  The  Rev.  J.  H. 
Halpin  suggested  in  1856  that  the  "  H.  S."  attacked  by 
Florio  in  his  Worlde  of  Wordes  in  1590  may  have  been 
directed  at  Shakespeare,  but  advanced  no  evidence  to 
support  his  theory,  which  has  since  been  relegated  by  the 
critics  to  the  limbo  of  fanciful  conjecture.  I  was  not  aware 
of  Mr.  Halpin's  suggestion  when  I  reached  my  present 
conclusions. 

There  has  hitherto  been  no  suspicion  whatever  on  the 
part  of  critics  that  anything  of  the  nature  of  a  continuous 
collusion  between  the  scholars  existed  against  Shakespeare 
in  these  early  years,  and  consequently,  when  at  a  later 
period  it  was  manifested  in  plays  presented  upon  rival 
stages,  it  was  regarded  as  a  new  development  and  named 
"  The  War  of  the  Theatres  " ;  but  even  this  open  phase  of 
the  antagonism  and  the  respective  sides  taken  by  its  par- 

1  Mistress  Davenant,  the  Dark  Lady  of  Shakes  pearls  Sonnets. 


16    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

ticipants  are  still  misunderstood.  This  critical  opacity  is 
due  largely  to  the  fact  that  Shakespearean  criticism  has  for 
many  years  been  regarded  as  the  province  of  academic 
specialists  in  literature  who  have  neglected  the  social  and 
political  history  of  Shakespeare's  day  as  outside  their  line  of 
specialisation.  It  was  probably  Froude's  recognition  of  this 
nebulous  condition  in  Shakespearean  criticism  that  deterred 
him  from  continuing  his  history  to  the  end  of  the  reign  of 
Elizabeth,  and  prevented  Gardiner  beginning  his  where 
Froude's  ended.  These  great  historians  realised  that  no 
adequate  history  of  that  remarkable  period  could  be  written 
that  did  not  include  a  full  consideration  of  Shakespeare  and 
his  influence ;  yet,  making  no  pretensions  themselves  to 
Shakespearean  scholarship,  and  finding  in  extant  knowledge 
no  sure  foundations  whereon  to  build,  they  evaded  the  issue, 
confining  their  investigations  to  the  development  of  those 
phases  of  history  in  which  they  were  more  vitally  interested. 
Froude's  intimate  knowledge  of  the  characters  and  atmo- 
sphere of  Elizabethan  social  and  political  life,  acquired  by  years 
of  devoted  application  to  an  exhaustive  examination  of  docu- 
mentary records  and  the  epistolatory  correspondence  of  the 
period,  convinced  him  that  Shakespeare  drew  his  models 
and  his  atmosphere  from  concurrent  life.  He  writes  :  "  We 
wonder  at  the  grandeur,  the  moral  majesty  of  some  of 
Shakespeare's  characters,  so  far  beyond  what  the  noblest 
among  ourselves  can  imitate,  and  at  first  thought  we  attribute 
it  to  the  genius  of  the  poet  who  has  outstripped  nature  in 
his  creations,  but  we  are  misunderstanding  the  power  and  the 
meaning  of  poetry  in  attributing  creativeness  to  it  in  any  such 
sense.  Shakespeare  created  but  only  as  the  spirit  of  nature 
created  around  him,  working  in  him  as  it  worked  abroad  in 
those  among  whom  he  lived.  The  men  whom  he  draws 


INTRODUCTORY  17 

were  such  men  as  he  saw  and  knew ;  the  words  they  utter 
were  such  as  he  heard  in  the  ordinary  conversations  in  which 
he  joined.  ...  At  a  thousand  unnamed  English  firesides  he 
found  the  living  originals  for  his  Prince  Hals,  his  Orlandos, 
his  Antonios,  his  Portias,  his  Isabellas.  The  closer  personal 
acquaintance  which  we  can  form  with  the  English  of  the  age 
of  Elizabeth,  the  more  we  are  satisfied  that  Shakespeare's 
great  poetry  is  no  more  than  the  rhythmic  echo  of  the  life 
which  he  depicts." 

As  this  book  is  intended  as  a  precursor  to  one  shortly  to 
be  published  dealing  with  the  sonnets  and  the  plays  of  the 
Sonnet  period,  the  only  plays  here  critically  considered  are 
King  John  and  The  Comedy  of  Errors,  which  I  shall  argue 
are  the  only  plays — now  extant — written  by  Shakespeare 
before  the  inception  of  his  intimacy  with  the  Earl  of 
Southampton,  which  I  date,  upon  good  evidence,  in  the 
autumn  of  1591.  In  the  former  we  have  probably  the  best 
example  of  the  manner  in  which  Elizabethan  playwrights 
dramatised  contemporary  affairs.  In  this  instance  Shake- 
speare worked  from  an  older  play  which  had  been  composed 
with  the  same  intention  with  which  he  rewrote  it,  and  as  the 
old  play  had  passed  the  censor  and  been  for  years  upon  the 
public  boards,  he  was  enabled  to  develop  his  intention  more 
openly  than  even  he  dared  to  do  in  later  years,  when,  owing 
to  the  influence  of  Lord  Burghley  and  his  son,  Sir  Robert 
Cecil,  the  enforcement  of  the  statutes  against  the  representa- 
tion of  matters  of  State  upon  the  stage  became  increasingly 
stringent. 

Though  the  political  phases  of  Shakespeare's  dramas 
become  more  veiled  as  the  years  pass,  I  unhesitatingly  affirm 
that  there  is  not  a  single  play  composed  between  the  end  of 
1591  and  the  conclusion  of  his  dramatic  career  that  does  not, 


18     SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

in  some  manner,  intentionally  reflect  either  the  social,  literary, 
or  political  affairs  of  his  day. 

In  order  that  the  reader  may  approach  a  consideration  of 
the  rearranged  sonnets  with  a  clear  perspective,  and  to 
keep  the  Sonnet  story  uninvolved  by  subsidiary  argument,  I 
now  demonstrate  not  only  the  beginning  of  the  acquaintance 
between  Shakespeare  and  the  Earl  of  Southampton — which 
has  not  hitherto  been  known — but  also  take  a  forward 
glance  of  several  years  in  order  definitely  to  establish  the 
identity  of  John  Florio  as  Shakespeare's  original  for  Falstaff, 
Parolles,  and  Armado.  His  identity  as  the  original  for  still 
other  characters  will  be  made  apparent  as  this  history 
develops  in  the  Sonnet  period. 


CHAPTER  II 
THE  STRATFORD  DAYS 

"  *W  IT  T  H  AT  porridge  had  John  Keats  ?  "  asks  Browning. 

\/\/  So  may  we  well  inquire  of  what  blood  was 
Shakespeare?  What  nice  conjunction  of  racial 
strains  produced  this  unerring  judgment,  this  heaven-scaling 
imagination,  this  exquisite  sensibility?  for,  however  his 
manner  of  life  may  have  developed  their  expression,  these 
qualities  were  plainly  inherent  in  the  man. 

The  name  Shakespeare  has  been  found  to  have  existed 
during  the  thirteenth,  fourteenth,  fifteenth,  and  sixteenth 
centuries  in  various  parts  of  England,  and  has  been  most 
commonly  encountered  in  and  about  Warwickshire.  While 
it  is  spelt  in  many  different  ways,  the  commonest  form  is 
Shaxper  or  Shaxpeare,  giving  the  a  in  the  first  syllable  the 
same  sound  as  in  flax.  Wherever  Shakespeare  families  are 
found,  however,  they  invariably  show  a  very  great  pre- 
ponderance of  Christian  names  that  are  characteristically 
Norman :  Richard,  Gilbert,  Hugh,  William,  John,  Robert, 
Anthony,  Henry,  Thomas,  Joan,  Mary,  Isabella,  Ann, 
Margaret,  being  met  with  frequently.  It  is  likely  then  that 
the  widespread  and  persistent  use  of  Norman  Christian 
names  by  Shakespeare  families  denotes  their  Norman  origin, 
and  that  this  link  with  their  past  was  preserved  by  family 
custom  long  after  pride  of  ancestry — which  first  continued 

19 


20     SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

its  use — was  forgotten,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Irish  peasantry 
of  Norman  origin  in  Leinster — within  what  was  formerly 
known  as  the  Norman  Pale — who  have  long  forgotten  their 
origin,  but  having  Norman  patronymics  still  preserve  also 
Norman  Christian  names. 

The  etymological  origin  of  Shakespeare's  name  is  yet 
unsettled :  one  scholar  suggests  that  it  derives  from  the 
Anglo-Saxon,  Saexberht.  This  would  imply  that  the 
Anglo-Saxon  prefix  saex  has  by  time  been  transmuted 
into  Shake,  and  that  the  suffix,  berht  has  become  pear  or 
pere.  The  instances  in  which  the  Anglo-Saxon  sae  have 
changed  into  the  English  sh  are  extremely  rare.  The 
modern  sh  in  English  when  derived  from  Anglo-Saxon  is 
almost  invariably  sc  softened,  or  when  derived  from  Danish 
or  Norse  sh,  as,  for  instance,  in  the  words  sceadu  shade, 
sceaft  shaft,  sceacan  shake,  sceal  shall,  scamu  shame,  skapa 
shape.  I  cannot  find  a  single  instance  in  the  growth  of 
Anglo-Saxon  into  English  where  the  original  berht  has 
taken  on  the/  sound  and  become  pear  or  pere.  The  English 
for  berht  as  a  rule  is  bert,  burt,  or  bard. 

Shakespeare's  sanity  of  judgment  and  spiritual  self- 
reliance  are  qualities  which  we  naturally  associate  with  the 
Norse  temperament;  his  fine  sensibility  and  unfettered 
imagination  strike  us  as  much  more  characteristically 
Gallic  or  Celtic.  It  seems  probable  then  that  in  his  physical 
and  spiritual  composition  we  have  a  rare  admixture  of  these 
related  Aryan  types.  Physically  he  was  not  a  large  man, 
being,  in  fact,  rather  below  the  middle  stature ;  his  hair  was 
strong  in  texture  and  dark  reddish  in  colour,  while  his  eyes 
were  brown ;  his  nose  was  large,  and  his  lips  full,  but  the 
face  relieved  of  sensuousness  by  the  dominant  majesty  of 
the  brow.  This  is  not  descriptive  of  an  Anglo-Saxon  type : 


THE   STRATFORD   DAYS  21 

it  is  much  more  distinctly  French  or  Norman.  It  is  prob- 
able that  the  blood  of  the  Norman  ran  full  in  Shakespeare's 
veins,  and  who  was  the  Norman  but  the  racial  combination 
of  the  Norseman  and  the  Gaul  ?  In  this  light,  then,  I  suggest 
that  the  name  Shakespeare  seems  to  be  much  closer  to  the 
Norman-French  Jacquespierre  than  it  is  to  the  Anglo-Saxon 
saexberht.  In  the  gradual  transition  of  Norman-French 
into  English  pronunciation,  Shakespeare,  or  as  the  name 
was  pronounced  in  Elizabethan  days,  Shaxper,  is  exactly 
the  form  which  the  English  tongue  would  have  given  to 
the  name  Jacquespierre.  It  is  significant  that  Arden,  his 
mother's  name,  is  also  of  Norman  origin ;  that  his  grand- 
father's name  Richard,  his  father's  name  John,  his  own 
name  William,  and  the  names  of  all  his  brothers  and 
sisters,  but  one,  were  Norman.  In  view  of  these  indica- 
tions, it  is  not  unreasonable  to  assume  that  Norman  blood 
held  good  proportion  in  the  veins  of  this  greatest  of  all 
Englishmen. 

Exhaustive  research  by  interested  genealogists  has 
failed  to  trace  Shakespeare's  forebears  further  into  the  past 
than  to  his  grandfather,  Richard  Shakespeare,  a  substantial 
yeoman  of  Snitterfield,  and  this  relationship,  while  generally 
accepted,  is  not  yet  definitely  established.  There  is  no 
doubt,  however,  that  John  Shakespeare,  butcher,  glover, 
woolstapler,  or  corndealer,  or  all  of  these  things  combined, 
of  Stratford-upon-Avon,  was  his  father,  and  that  the  poet 
was  baptized  in  the  Parish  Church  of  that  town  upon  26th 
April,  in  the  year  1564.  He  was  born  on,  or  shortly  before, 
23rd  April  in  the  same  year. 

Shakespeare's  mother  was  Mary  Arden,  the  youngest  of 
eight  daughters — by  the  first  wife — of  Robert  Arden,  a 
landed  gentleman  of  Wilmcote,  related  to  the  Ardens  of 


22     SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

Parkhill,   at   that  time    one    of    the    leading    families   of 
Warwickshire. 

On  the  theory  that  men  of  great  intellectual  capacity 
inherit  their  qualities  from  the  distaff  side,  it  might  help  us 
to  realise  Shakespeare  better  if  we  know  more  about  his 
mother :  of  her  personality  and  character,  however,  we  know 
absolutely  nothing. 

The  mothers  depicted  by  Shakespeare  in  his  plays  are, 
as  a  rule,  devoted,  strong,  and  noble  characters,  and  are 
probably  in  some  measure  spiritual  reflections  of  the  model 
he  knew  most  intimately.  It  is  improbable  that  Shake- 
speare's childhood  should  not  have  shown  some  evidence  of 
the  qualities  he  later  displayed,  and  impossible  that  such 
promise  should  be  hidden  from  a  mother's  eye. 

The  wealth  of  Shakespeare's  productiveness  in  the  three 
years  preceding  the  end  of  1594  gives  ample  evidence 
that  the  dark  years  intervening  between  his  departure  from 
Stratford  and  the  autumn  of  1591  had  not  been  idly  spent. 
Such  mastery  of  his  art  as  he  displays  even  at  this  early 
period  was  not  attained  without  an  active  and  interested 
novitiate  in  his  profession.  It  is  evident  that  the  appellation 
Johannes  factotum,  which  Greene  in  1592  slurringly  bestows 
upon  him,  had  been  well  earned  in  the  six  or  seven  pre- 
ceding years  of  his  London  life  for  which  we  possess  no 
records. 

Whatever  misgivings  their  staid  and  thrifty  Stratford 
neighbours  may  have  had  as  to  the  wisdom  of  the  youthful 
Shakespeare's  London  adventure,  we  may  well  believe  that 
Mary  Arden,  knowing  her  son's  fibre,  felt  fair  assurance 
that  his  success  there  would  come  near  to  matching  her 
desires,  and  that  of  the  several  spurs  to  his  industry  and 
pride  of  achievement  the  smile  of  her  approval  was  not  the 


THE   STRATFORD  DAYS  23 

least.  There  is  possibly  a  backward  glance  to  his  mother's 
faith  in  him  in  the  spirit  of  Volumnia's  hopes  for  the  fame 
of  her  son: 

"When  yet  he  was  but  tender-bodied,  and  the  only 
son  of  my  womb ;  when  youth  with  comeliness  plucked 
all  gaze  his  way;  when  for  a  day  of  Kings'  entreaties,  a 
mother  should  not  sell  him  an  hour  from  her  beholding ;  I 
— considering  how  honour  would  become  such  a  person; 
that  it  was  no  better  than  picture-like  to  hang  by  the  wall, 
if  renown  made  it  not  stir, — was  pleased  to  let  him  seek 
danger  where  he  was  like  to  find  fame.  To  a  cruel  war  I 
sent  him ;  from  whence  he  returned,  his  brows  bound  with 
oak.  I  tell  thee,  daughter — I  sprang  not  more  in  joy  at 
first  hearing  he  was  a  man-child,  than  now  in  first  seeing  he 
had  proved  himself  a  man." 

Mary  Arden  died  in  1608,  at  about  the  time  the  passage 
quoted  above  was  written,  having  lived  long  enough  to  see 
the  fortunes  of  the  family  restored  through  her  son's  efforts, 
and  also  to  see  him  become  one  of  the  most  noted  men  in 
England,  and  returning  to  Stratford  with  his  brows  crowned, 
if  not  with  martial  oak,  with  more  enduring  laurels. 

We  have  no  record  of  Shakespeare's  schooldays.  We 
know  that  a  free  grammar  school  of  good  standard  existed 
in  Stratford  during  his  boyhood,  and  later.  It  is  usually 
assumed  that  it  was  here  that  Shakespeare  got  the  elements 
of  his  education.  Though  he  was  in  no  sense  a  classical 
scholar,  he  undoubtedly  had  an  elementary  knowledge  of 
Latin,  and  may  possibly,  in  later  years,  have  acquired  a 
smattering  of  Greek.  George  Chapman  accuses  Shakespeare 
of  spreading  the  report  that  his  alleged  translations  of  Homer 
from  the  original  Greek  were,  in  fact,  made  from  Latin 
versions.  Whatever  truth  there  may  have  been  in  Chapman's 


24     SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

accusation  against  Shakespeare  in  this  connection,  modern 
scholarship  has  found  that  there  were  good  grounds  for  such 
a  report,  and  that  Chapman  undoubtedly  made  free  use  of 
the  Latin  of  Scapula  in  all  of  his  translations.  Chapman's 
allegation,  if  true,  seems  to  imply  that  Shakespeare's  know- 
ledge of  Latin  was  not  so  meagre  but  that  he  could,  upon 
occasion,  successfully  combat  his  learned  opponents  with 
weapons  of  their  own  choice. 

Once  at  work  in  London,  Shakespeare  wrought  hard,  and 
in  view  of  his  immense  productiveness  can  have  had  little 
leisure  in  the  ten  or  fifteen  years  following.  We  may  infer, 
then,  that  the  wealth  of  knowledge  of  nature  he  displays 
was  acquired  in  his  boyhood  and  youth  in  the  country  round 
about  Stratford.  His  intimate  acquaintance  with  animate 
and  inanimate  life  in  all  their  forms,  his  knowledge  of  banks 
where  wild  thyme  grew,  his  love  of  flowers  and  of  natural 
beauty  which  remained  with  him  all  through  his  life,  were 
evidently  gained  at  that  receptive  period : 

"  When  meadow,  grove,  and  stream, 
The  earth  and  every  common  thing  to  (him)  did  seem, 
Appareled  in  celestial  light, 
The  glory  and  the  freshness  of  a  dream." 

Though  Shakespeare's  schooldays  were  over  long  before 
he  left  Stratford  for  London,  his  real  education  had  only 
then  begun.  To  his  all-gleaning  eye  and  hungry  mind 
every  day  he  lived  brought  new  accretions  of  knowledge. 
Notwithstanding  the  paucity  of  recorded  fact  which  exists 
regarding  his  material  life,  and  the  wealth  of  intimate  know- 
ledge we  may  possess  regarding  the  lives  of  other  writers,  I 
doubt  if,  in  the  works  of  any  other  author  in  the  entire 
history  of  literature,  we  can  trace  such  evidence  of  continuous 
intellectual  and  spiritual  growth. 


THE   STRATFORD   DAYS  25 

While  we  have  no  light  on  Shakespeare's  childhood,  a 
few  facts  have  been  gleaned  from  the  Stratford  records 
concerning  his  father's  affairs  and  his  own  youth,  a  considera- 
tion of  which  may  enable  us  to  judge  the  underlying  causes 
which  led  him  to  seek  his  fortunes  in  London. 

There  is  something  pathetic  yet  dignified  about  the 
figure  of  John  Shakespeare  as  we  dimly  sight  it  in  what 
remains  of  the  annals  of  his  town  and  time.  The  stage  he 
treads  is  circumscribed,  and  his  appearances  are  few,  but 
sufficient  for  us  to  apprehend  a  high-spirited  but  injudicious 
man,  showing  always  somewhat  superior  in  spirit  to  his 
social  conditions. 

He  settled  in  Stratford  twelve  years  previous  to  the  birth 
of  our  poet,  and  appears  to  have  been  recognised  as  a  man 
of  some  importance  soon  after  his  arrival.  We  have  record 
that  he  was  elected  to  various  small  municipal  offices  early 
in  his  Stratford  career,  and  also  of  purchases  of  property 
from  time  to  time,  all  of  which  evidences  a  growth  in  estate 
and  public  regard.  At  about  the  time  of  Shakespeare's 
birth,  and  during  a  season  of  pestilence,  we  find  him  prominent 
amongst  those  of  his  townsmen  who  contributed  to  succour 
their  distressed  and  stricken  neighbours.  A  year  later  than 
this  we  find  him  holding  office  as  alderman,  and  later  still  as 
bailiff  of  Stratford  ;  the  latter  the  highest  office  in  the  gift  of 
his  fellow-townsmen.  While  holding  this  office  we  catch  a 
glimpse  of  him  giving  welcome  to  a  travelling  company  of 
players;  an  innovation  in  the  uses  of  his  position  which 
argues  a  broad  and  tolerant  catholicity  of  mind  when  con- 
trasted with  the  growing  Puritanism  of  the  times.  And  so, 
for  several  years,  we  see  him  prosper,  and  living  as  befits  one 
who  prospers,  and,  withal,  wearing  his  village  honours  with  a 
kindly  dignity.  But  fortune  turns,  and  a  period  of  reverses 


26     SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

sets  in ;  we  do  not  trace  them  very  distinctly ;  we  find  him 
borrowing  moneys  and  mortgaging  property,  and,  later,  these 
and  older  obligations  fall  due,  and,  failing  payment,  he  is 
sued,  and  thereafter  for  some  years  he  fights  a  stubborn 
rearguard  fight  with  pursuing  fate  in  the  form  of  truculent 
creditors  and  estranged  relatives. 

In  the  onset  of  these  troubles  an  event  occurred  which, 
we  may  safely  assume,  did  not  tend  to  ease  his  worries  nor 
add  to  his  peace  of  mind.  In  1582,  his  son,  our  poet,  then 
a  youth  of  eighteen,  brought  to  his  home  an  added  care  in 
the  shape  of  a  wife  who  was  nearly  eight  years  his  senior, 
and  who  (the  records  tell  us)  bore  him  a  daughter  within  six 
months  of  the  date  of  their  betrothal.  All  the  circumstances 
surrounding  the  marriage  lead  us  to  infer  that  Shakespeare's 
family  was  not  enthusiastically  in  favour  of  it,  and  was 
perhaps  ignorant  of  it  till  its  consummation,  and  that  it  was 
practically  forced  upon  the  youthful  Shakespeare  by  the 
bride's  friends  for  reasons  obvious  in  the  facts  of  the  case. 
About  two  and  a  half  years  from  this  date,  and  at  a  period 
when  John  Shakespeare's  affairs  had  become  badly  involved 
and  his  creditors  uncomfortably  persistent,  his  son's  family 
and  his  own  care  were  increased  by  the  addition  of  the 
twins,  Judith  and  Hamnet  The  few  records  we  have  of 
this  period  (1585-86)  show  a  most  unhappy  state  of  affairs  ; 
his  creditors  are  still  on  the  warpath,  and  one,  owning  to  the 
solid  name  of  John  Brown,  having  secured  judgment  against 
him,  is  compelled  to  report  to  the  court  that  "  the  defendant 
hath  no  property  whereon  to  levy."  Shortly  after  this,  John 
Shakespeare  is  shorn  of  the  last  shred  of  his  civic  honours, 
being  deprived  of  his  office  of  alderman  for  non-attendance 
at  the  council  meetings.  In  this  condition  of  things  we  may 
realise  the  feelings  of  an  imaginative  and  sensitive  youth  of 


THE   STRATFORD   DAYS  27 

his  son's  calibre ;  how  keenly  he  would  feel  the  helplessness 
and  the  reproach  of  his  position,  especially  if — as  was  no 
doubt  the  case — it  was  augmented  by  the  looks  of  askance 
and  wagging  of  heads  of  the  sleek  and  thrifty  wise-ones  of 
his  community. 

We  are  fairly  well  assured  that  Shakespeare  did  not 
leave  Stratford  before  the  end  of  1585,  and  it  appears  prob- 
able that  he  remained  there  as  late  as  1586  or  1587.  Seeing 
that  he  had  compromised  himself  at  the  age  of  eighteen  with 
a  woman  eight  years  his  senior,  whom  he  married  from  a 
sense  of  honour  or  was  induced  to  marry  by  her  friends,  we 
may  infer  that  the  three  or  four  subsequent  years  he  spent 
in  Stratford  were  not  conducive  either  to  domestic  felicity 
or  peace  of  mind.  How  Shakespeare  occupied  himself 
during  these  years  we  may  never  know,  though  it  is  very 
probable  that  he  worked  in  the  capacity  of  assistant  to  his 
father.  That  these  were  years  of  introspection  and  remorse 
to  one  of  his  spirit,  however,  there  can  be  little  doubt ;  there 
can  be  still  less  doubt  that  they  were  also  years  of  formative 
growth,  and  that  in  this  interval  the  irresponsible  youth,  who 
had  given  hostages  to  fortune  by  marrying  at  the  age  of 
eighteen,  steadied  by  the  responsibility  of  a  growing  family, 
quickly  developed  into  some  promise  of  the  man  to  be. 

No  biographer  has  yet  taken  into  consideration  the 
effect  which  the  circumstances  of  Shakespeare's  life  during 
these  four  or  five  formative  years  must  necessarily  have  had 
in  the  development  of  his  character.  That  this  exquisite 
poet,  this  builder  of  dreams,  should  in  the  common  affairs 
of  life  have  displayed  such  an  effectively  practical  bent,  has 
always  appeared  an  anomaly ;  a  partial  explanation  is  to  be 
found  in  the  incentive  given  to  his  energies  by  the  conditions 
of  his  life,  and  of  his  father's  affairs,  at  this  formative  period. 


28     SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

To  the  habitually  poor,  poverty  is  a  familiar ;  to  the  patrician 
who  has  had  reverses,  it  may  be  a  foil  to  his  spirit :  he  still 
has  his  pride  of  family  and  caste.  To  the  burgher  class,  in 
which  Shakespeare  moved  in  Stratford,  the  loss  of  money 
was  the  loss  of  caste.  To  provide  for  the  future  of  his 
children  and  to  restore  the  declining  fortunes  and  prestige 
of  his  family  became  now  his  most  immediate  concern,  if 
we  may  form  any  judgment  from  his  subsequent  activities. 
The  history  of  literature  has  given  us  so  many  instances  of 
poetic  genius  being  unaccompanied  by  ordinary  worldly 
wisdom,  and  so  few  instances  of  a  combination  of  business 
aptitude  with  poetic  genius,  that  some  so-called  biographers, 
enamoured  of  the  conventional  idea  of  a  poet,  seem  almost  to 
resent  our  great  poet's  practical  common  sense  when  dis- 
played in  his  everyday  life,  and  to  impute  to  him  as  a 
derogation,  or  fault,  the  sound  judgment  in  worldly  matters, 
without  which  he  never  could  have  evolved  the  sane  and 
unimpassioned  philosophy  of  life,  which,  like  a  firm  and 
even  warp,  runs  veiled  through  the  multicoloured  weft  of 
incident  and  accident  in  his  dramas. 

All  Shakespearean  biographers  now  agree  in  dating  his 
hegira  from  Stratford  not  later  than  the  year  1587.  Early 
in  1585  his  twin  children,  Judith  and  Hamnet,  were  born. 
The  fact  that  no  children  were  born  to  him  later  is  usually 
advanced  in  favour  of  the  assumption  that  he  left  Stratford 
shortly  after  this  date.  In  the  next  eleven  years  we  have 
but  one  mention  of  him  in  the  Stratford  records.  Towards 
the  end  of  1587  his  name,  in  conjunction  with  his  father's, 
appears  upon  a  legal  form  relating  to  the  proposed  cancella- 
tion of  a  mortgage  upon  some  property  in  which  he  held 
a  contingent  interest.  This,  however,  does  not  necessarily 
indicate  his  presence  in  Stratford  at  that  time. 


THE   STRATFORD   DAYS  29 

At  the  present  time  the  most  generally  accepted 
hypothesis  regarding  the  beginning  of  Shakespeare's 
theatrical  career  is  that  he  joined  the  Earl  of  Leicester's 
company  of  players  upon  the  occasion  of  their  visit  to  Strat- 
ford-upon-Avon,  either  in  the  year  1586  or  1587.  Upon 
the  death  of  the  Earl  of  Leicester  in  1588,  when  this 
company  was  disrupted,  it  is  thought  probable  that  in 
company  with  Will  Kempe,  George  Bryan,  and  Thomas 
Pope  (actors  with  whom  he  was  afterwards  affiliated  for 
years),  he  joined  Lord  Strange's  players,  with  which  company 
under  its  various  later  titles  he  continued  to  be  connected 
during  the  remainder  of  his  theatrical  career,  i  shall  prove 
this  theory  to  be  erroneous  and  adduce  evidence  to  show 
that  of  whatever  company,  or  companies,  he  may  later  have 
been  an  active  member,  his  theatrical  experience  had  its 
inception  in  a  connection  as  theatrical  assistant  with  the 
interests  of  the  Burbages;  with  whose  fortunes  he  there- 
after continued  to  be  connected  till  the  end  of  his  London 
career. 

In  judging  of  the  youthful  Shakespeare,  of  whom  we  can 
only  conjecture,  we  may  reasonably  draw  inferences  from 
the  character  of  the  man  we  find  revealed  in  his  life's  work. 
I  am  convinced  that  Shakespeare's  departure  from  Stratford 
was  deliberate,  and  that  when  he  went  to  London  he  did  so 
with  a  definite  purpose  in  view.  Had  Shakespeare's  father 
been  a  prosperous  man  of  business,  in  all  probability  the 
world  would  never  have  heard  of  his  son ;  though  the  local 
traditions  of  Stratford  might  have  been  enriched  by  the 
proverbial  wit  and  wisdom  of  a  certain  anonymous  sixteenth- 
century  tradesman. 

Unconfirmed  legend,  originating  nearly  a  hundred  years 
after  the  alleged  event,  is  the  sole  basis  for  the  report  that 


30     SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

Shakespeare  was  forced  to  leave  his  native  town  on  account 
of  his  participation  in  a  poaching  adventure.  It  is  possible 
that  Shakespeare  in  his  youth  may  have  indulged  in  such  a 
natural  transgression  of  the  law,  but  supposing  it  to  be  a 
fact  that  he  did  so,  it  does  not  necessarily  brand  him  as  a 
scapegrace.  A  ne'er-do-well  in  the  country  would  probably 
remain  the  same  in  the  city,  and  would  be  likely  to 
accentuate  his  characteristics  there,  especially  if  his  life  was 
cast,  as  was  Shakespeare's,  in  Bohemian  surroundings. 
Instead  of  this,  what  are  the  facts  ?  Assuming  that  Shake- 
speare left  Stratford  in  1586  or  1587,  and  became,  as  tradition 
reports,  a  servitor  in  the  theatre  at  that  period,  let  us  look 
ten  years  ahead  and  see  how  he  has  fared. 

We  know  that  he  had  already  returned  to  Stratford  in 
1597  and  purchased  one  of  the  most  important  residences  in 
the  town.  From  the  fact  that  John  Shakespeare's  creditors 
from  this  time  forward  ceased  to  harass  him,  we  may  assume 
that  he  had  also  settled  his  father's  affairs.  We  have  record 
that  in  1 596  he  had,  through  his  father,  applied  for  the  con- 
firmation of  an  old  grant  of  arms,  which  was  confirmed 
three  years  later,  and  that  he  thereafter  was  styled  "  William 
Shakespeare,  Gentleman  of  Stratford-upon-Avon."  At  this 
period  he  had  also  produced  more  than  one-third  of  his 
known  literary  work,  and  was  acknowledged  as  the  leading 
dramatist  of  the  time.  All  of  this  he  had  attained  working 
in  the  same  environment  in  which  other  men  of  about  his 
own  age,  but  of  greater  education  and  larger  opportunities, 
had  found  penury,  disgrace,  and  death.  Marlowe,  his  con- 
frere, at  the  age  of  thirty,  in  1593,  was  killed  in  a  tavern 
brawl.  A  year  earlier,  Greene,  also  a  university  man,  would 
have  died  a  beggar  on  the  street  but  for  the  charity  of  a 
cobbler's  wife  who  housed  him  in  his  dying  hours.  Spenser, 


THE   STRATFORD   DAYS  31 

breathing  a  purer  atmosphere,  but  lacking  the  business 
aptitude  of  Shakespeare,  died  broken-hearted  in  poverty  in 
1599.  George  Peele,  another  university  man,  at  about  the 
same  date,  and  at  the  age  of  thirty-four,  we  are  told  by 
Meres,  died  from  the  results  of  an  irregular  life.  And  those 
of  his  literary  contemporaries  who  lived  as  long  as,  or  out- 
lived, Shakespeare,  what  were  their  ends,  and  where  are 
their  memories?  Unknown  and  in  most  cases  forgotten 
except  where  they  live  in  his  reflected  light.  Matthew 
Roy  don  lived  long  and  died  in  poverty,  no  one  knows  when 
or  where.  George  Chapman  outlived  his  great  rival  many 
years,  and  died  as  he  had  lived,  a  friendless  misanthropist. 

Though  Shakespeare  won  to  fame  and  fortune  over  the 
temptations  and  vicissitudes  of  the  same  life  and  environments 
to  which  so  many  of  his  fellows  succumbed,  we  have  proof 
that  this  was  not  due  to  any  inherent  asceticism  or  native 
coldness  of  blood. 

No  man  in  Shakespeare's  circumstances  could  have 
attained  and  accomplished  what  he  did  during  those  early 
years  living  at  haphazard  or  without  a  controlling  purpose  in 
life.  Whatever  may  have  been  the  immediate  accident  of 
fate  that  turned  his  face  Londonwards,  we  may  rest  assured 
that  he  went  there  with  the  purpose  of  retrieving  his  good 
name  in  his  own  community  and  rehabilitating  the  fortunes 
of  his  family. 

Shakespeare's  literary  history  does  not  show  in  him  any 
evidence  of  remarkable  precocity.  Keats  was  famous  and 
already  gathered  to  the  immortals  at  an  age  at  which  Shake- 
speare was  still  in  the  chrysalid  stage  of  the  actual  buskin 
and  sock.  It  may  reasonably  be  doubted  that  Shakespeare 
produced  any  of  his  known  poems  or  plays  previous  to 
the  years  1590-91.  Though  his  genius  blossomed  late  his 


32     SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

common  sense  and  business  capacity  developed  early,  forced 
into  being,  no  doubt,  by  a  realisation  of  his  responsibilities, 
as  well  as  by  the  deplorable  condition  into  which  his  father's 
affairs  had  fallen.  So,  between  the  years  1583,  when  he  was 
married,  and  1591-92,  when  we  first  begin  to  get  some  hints 
of  his  literary  activities,  his  Pegasus  was  in  harness  earning 
bread  and  butter  and,  incidentally,  gleaning  worldly  wisdom. 
"  Love's  young  dream  "  is  over ;  the  ecstatic  quest  of  the 
"  not  impossible  she,"  almost  at  its  inception,  has  ended  in 
the  cold  anticlimax  of  an  enforced  marriage. 

We  may  dismiss  the  deer-stealing  rumour  as  referring  to 
this  period.  The  patient  industry,  sound  judgment,  and 
unusual  business  capacity  exhibited  by  Shakespeare  from 
the  time  we  begin  to  get  actual  glimpses  of  his  doings  until 
the  end  of  his  career,  belie  the  stupid  and  belated  rumour  of 
his  having  been  forced  to  leave  Stratford  as  a  fugitive  from 
justice  on  account  of  his  participation  in  a  poaching 
adventure  upon  Sir  Thomas  Lucy's  preserves.  While  it  is 
apparent  that  this  bucolic  Justice  of  the  Peace  is  caricatured 
as  Justice  Shallow  in  Henry  /F.,  Part  //.,  it  is  still  more  clear 
that  this  play  was  not  written  until  the  end  of  the  year  1598. 
When  Shakespeare's  methods  of  work  are  better  understood 
it  will  become  evident  that  he  did  not  in  1598  revenge  an 
injury  from  ten  to  twelve  years  old.  Whatever  may  have 
been  his  animus  against  Sir  Thomas  Lucy  it  undoubtedly 
pertained  to  conditions  existent  in  the  year  1598.  In  1596 
John  Shakespeare's  application  for  arms  was  made,  but  was 
not  finally  granted  until  late  in  1598,  or  early  in  1599.  It 
was  still  under  consideration  by  the  College  of  Heralds, 
or  had  very  recently  been  granted  when  Shakespeare  wrote 
Henry  I F.,  Part  //.,  late  in  1 598.  It  is  not  likely  that  such  a 
grant  of  arms  would  be  made  even  by  the  most  friendly 


THE   STRATFORD   DAYS  33 

disposed  authorities  without  consultation  with,  or  reference 
to,  the  local  magistracy  or  gentry  regarding  the  character 
and  social  standing  of  the  applicant.  It  is  quite  likely  then 
that  the  rustic  squire  resented — what  such  a  character  would 
undoubtedly  have  regarded  as  a  tradesman's  presumption, 
and  that  Shakespeare,  becoming  cognizant  of  his  objections, 
answered  them  in  kind  by  caricaturing  the  Lucy  arms. 
The  critical  student  of  Shakespeare's  works  will  find  that 
wherever  a  reflection  of  a  topical  nature  is  palpable  in  his 
plays,  that  the  thing,  or  incident,  referred  to  is  almost 
invariably  a  matter  of  comparatively  recent  experience.  If 
it  is  a  reflection  of,  or  a  reference  to,  another  writer  we  may 
be  assured  that  Shakespeare  has  recently  come  from  a 
perusal  of  the  writer  in  question.  If  the  allusion  is  of  a 
social  or  political  nature  it  will  refer  to  some  recent  happen- 
ing or  to  something  that  is  still  of  public  interest.  Should 
such  an  allusion  be  in  any  sense  autobiographical  and  per- 
taining to  his  own  personal  interests  or  feelings,  it  is  still 
more  likely  to  refer  to  recent  experience.  Whatever  may 
have  been  the  reason  for  his  caricature  of  Sir  Thomas  Lucy, 
its  cause  was  evidently  of  a  later  date  than  his  departure 
from  Stratford.  It  was  no  shiftless  runagate  nor  fugitive 
from  justice  who  went  to  London  in,  or  about,  1585-87; 
neither  was  it  a  wrathful  Chatterton,  eating  out  his  heart  in 
bitter  pride  while  firing  his  imagination  to 


"  Paw  up  against  the  light 
And  do  strange  deeds  upon  the  clouds.' 


It  was  a  very  sane,  clear-headed,  and  resourceful  young  man 
who  took  service  with  the  Players,  one,  as  yet,  probably 
unconscious  of  literary  ability  or  dramatic  genius,  but  with  a 
capacity  for  hard  work ;  grown  somewhat  old  for  his  years 
3 


34    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

through  responsibility,  and  with  a  slightly  embittered  and 
mildly  cynical  pose  of  mind  in  regard  to  life. 

An  early  autobiographical  note  seems  to  be  sounded  in 
Falconbridge's  soliloquy  in  King  John,  Act  II.  Scene  ii.,  as 
follows : 

"And  why  rail  I  on  this  commodity? 
But  for  because  he  hath  not  woo'd  me  yet ; 
Not  that  I  have  the  power  to  clutch  my  hand, 
When  his  fair  angels  would  salute  my  palm ; 
But  for  my  hand,  as  unattempted  yet, 
Like  a  poor  beggar,  raileth  on  the  rich. 
Well,  whiles  I  am  a  beggar,  I  will  rail 
And  say  there  is  no  sin  but  to  be  rich; 
And  being  rich,  my  virtue  then  shall  be 
To  say  there  is  no  vice  but  beggary. 
Since  kings  break  faith  upon  commodity, 
Gain,  be  my  lord,  for  I  will  worship  thee." 

I  have  new  evidence  to  show  that  this  play  was  composed 
by  Shakespeare  in  1591,  and  though  it  was  revised  in 
about  1596,  the  passage  quoted  above,  which  exhibits 
the  affected  cynicism  of  youth,  pertains  to  the  earlier 
period.  Aside  from  the  leading  of  the  natural  bent  of  his 
genius  it  is  evident  that  the  greater  pecuniary  reward  to  be 
attained  from  the  writing  rather  than  from  the  acting  of 
plays  would  be  quickly  apparent  to  a  youth  who  in  this 
spirit  has  left  home  to  make  London  his  oyster. 

As  research  and  criticism  advance  and  we  are  enabled, 
little  by  little,  more  intimately  to  apprehend  the  personality 
of  Shakespeare  and  to  construct  a  more  definite  chronology 
of  his  doings,  the  shifting  lights  of  evidence  in  the  form  of 
tradition  and  legend,  which  in  the  past  have  dazed,  or  mis- 
led, searchers,  either  disappear  or  take  on  new  values. 
When  we  remember  that  Shakespeare,  when  he  went  to 
London,  was  about  twenty-three  years  old,  the  father  of  a 
family,  and  the  son  of  an  ex-bailiff  of  the  not  unimportant 


THE  STRATFORD  DAYS  35 

town  of  Stratford,  we  may  dismiss  as  a  fanciful  distortion 
the  story  of  his  holding  horses  at  the  theatre  doors  for  stray 
pennies  ;  and  in  the  added  embellishment  of  the  story  which 
describes  this  Orpheon,  yet  thrifty  street  Arab,  as  organising 
for  this  purpose  a  band  of  his  mates  who,  to  prove  their 
honesty  when  soliciting  the  care  of  a  horse,  would  claim  to 
be  "  Shakespeare's  boys,"  we  may  find  a  clue  to  the  actual 
facts  of  the  case.  We  have  hitherto  had  no  definite  record 
of,  nor  recognised  allusion  to,  Shakespeare  between  the  year 
1587,  when  his  name  is  mentioned  with  his  father's  in  a 
legal  document,  and  the  year  1592,  when  we  have  the  well- 
known  allusions  of  Robert  Greene.  Greene's  references  in 
this  latter  year  reveal  Shakespeare  as  having  already  entered 
upon  his  literary  career,  and  at  the  same  time,  in  the  phrases 
"  upstart  crow  beautified  with  our  feathers  "  and  "  the  onlie 
Shake-scene  in  the  country,"  seem  to  point  to  him  as  an 
actor ;  the  expression  "  Johannes  factotum  "  seems  still  further 
to  widen  the  scope  of  his  activities  and  to  indicate  the  fact 
that  Shakespeare  wrought  in  several  capacities  for  his 
masters  during  his  earlier  theatrical  career.  Part  of  his  first 
work  for  his  employers,  it  is  possible,  consisted  in  taking 
charge  of  the  stabling  arrangements  for  the  horses  of  the 
gentlemen  and  noblemen  who  frequented  the  Theatre.  The 
expression  "  rude  groome,"  which  Greene  uses  in  his  attack 
upon  Shakespeare,  is  evidently  used  as  pointing  at  his  work 
in  this  capacity.  The  story  of  the  youths  who  introduced 
themselves  as  "  Shakespeare's  boys  "  seems  to  indicate  that 
he  was  the  recognised  representative  of  the  theatrical  pro- 
prietors who  provided  accommodations  for  this  purpose.  It 
is  to  be  assumed  then  that  Shakespeare,  having  charge  of 
this  work,  would  upon  occasions  come  personally  in  contact 
with  the  noblemen  and  gentry  who  frequented  Burbage's 


36     SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST    YEARS 

Theatre,  which  was  situated  in  the  parish  of  Shoreditch,  then 
regarded  as  the  outskirts  of  the  City. 

Of  the  several  records  concerning  this  alleged  incident 
in  Shakespeare's  early  London  experience,  that  which  is 
simplest  and  latest  in  date  seems  to  bear  the  greatest 
evidence  of  truth  when  considered  in  connection  with 
established  facts  and  coincident  circumstantial  evidence. 
Traditions  preserved  in  the  poet's  own  family  would  in 
essentials  be  likely  to  be  closer  to  the  truth  than  the  bibulous 
gossip  of  Sir  William  Davenant,  from  which  source  all  the 
other  records  of  this  story  are  derived.  In  the  monthly 
magazine  of  February  1818  the  story  is  told  as  follows: 
"  Mr.  J.  M.  Smith  said  he  had  often  heard  his  mother  state 
that  Shakespeare  owed  his  rise  in  life  and  his  introduction 
to  the  theatre  to  his  accidentally  holding  the  horse  of  a 
gentleman  at  the  door  of  the  theatre  on  his  first  arriving 
in  London ;  his  appearance  led  to  inquiry  and  subsequent 
patronage."  The  "  J.  M.  Smith  "  mentioned  here  was  the 
son  of  Mary  Hart,  a  lineal  descendant  of  Joan  Hart, 
Shakespeare's  sister.  While  it  is  clearly  impossible  that 
Shakespeare  owed  his  introduction  to  the  theatre  to  South- 
ampton, there  can  be  little  doubt,  in  the  light  of  data  to 
follow,  that  his  rise  in  life  was  much  enhanced  by  his  friend- 
ship and  patronage.  What  truth  there  may  be  in  this  story 
is  evidently  a  distorted  reflection  of  Shakespeare's  earlier 
work  in  the  Theatre  at  Shoreditch  and  of  his  later  acquaint- 
ance with  the  Earl  of  Southampton.  We  have  no  record, 
hint,  or  suggestion  of  his  personal  acquaintance  or  business 
connection  with  any  noblemen  or  gentlemen  other  than 
Southampton,  and  possibly  Sir  Thomas  Heneage,  at  this 
early  period.  It  shall  later  be  shown  that  Southampton 
first  became  identified  with  London  and  Court  life  in 


THE   STRATFORD   DAYS  37 

October  1590.  I  am  led  by  good  evidence  to  the  belief 
that  Shakespeare's  acquaintance  with  this  nobleman  had  its 
inception  very  soon  after  this  date,  and  that  he,  and  the 
theatrical  company  to  which  he  was  attached  at  that  time, 
attended  the  Earl  of  Southampton  at  Cowdray  House  and 
at  Tichfield  House  in  August  and  September  1591,  upon 
the  occasion  of  the  Queen's  progress  to,  and  sojourn  at, 
these  places. 


CHAPTER  III 

SHAKESPEARE,  THE  BURBAGES,  AND 
EDWARD  ALLEYN 

)4  S  we  have  well-attested  evidence  that  Shakespeare 
/-^  was  connected  with  the  interests  of  James  Burbage 
**-  -^-and  his  sons  from  1594  until  the  end  of  his  London 
career,  it  is  usually,  and  reasonably,  assumed  that  his  early 
years  in  London  were  also  spent  with  the  Burbages  ;  but  as 
nothing  is  definitely  known  regarding  Burbage's  company 
affiliations  between  1575,  when  we  have  record  that  he  was 
still  manager  of  Leicester's  company,  and  1594,  when  the 
Lord  Chamberlain's  company  left  Henslowe  and  Alleyn 
and  returned  to  Burbage  and  the  Theatre,  knowledge  of 
Shakespeare's  company  affiliations  during  these  years  is 
equally  nebulous.  Only  by  throwing  light  upon  Burbage's 
activities  during  these  years  can  we  hope  for  light  upon 
Shakespeare  during  the  same  period.  Much  of  the 
ambiguity  regarding  Burbage's  affairs  during  these  years 
arises  from  the  fact  that  critics  persist  in  regarding  him 
as  an  actor  and  an  active  member  of  a  regular  theatrical 
company  after  1576,  instead  of  recognising  the  palpable 
fact  that  he  was  now  also  a  theatrical  manager  with  a  large 
amount  of  borrowed  money  invested  in  a  theatre  upon 
which  it  would  take  all  of  his  energies  to  pay  interest  and 
make  a  profit.  After  1576  Burbage's  relations  with  com- 


THE  BURBAGES  AND  ALLEYN  39 

panics  of  actors  were  necessarily  much  the  same  as  those  of 
Henslowe's  with  the  companies  that  acted  at  his  theatres, 
though  it  is  probable  that  Burbage  acted  at  times  for  a  few 
years  after  this  date.  He  was  now  growing  old,  and  his 
business  responsibility  increasing,  it  is  unlikely  that  he  con- 
tinued to  act  long  after  1584,  when  his  son  Richard  entered 
upon  his  histrionic  career.1 

When  Shakespeare  came  to  London  in  1586-87,  there 
were  only  two  regular  theatres, — the  Theatre  and  the 
Curtain, — though  there  were  usually  several  companies 
playing  also  at  innyards  within  and  about  the  City.  The 
Theatre  at  Shoreditch,  owned  by  James  Burbage,  was  built 
by  him  in  1576,  and  was  the  first  building  designed  in 
modern  England  specially  for  theatrical  purposes.  Though 
he  had  many  troubles  in  later  years  with  his  brother-in-law 
and  partner,  John  Brayne,  and  with  his  grasping  landlord, 
Giles  Allen,  he  retained  his  ownership  of  the  Theatre  until 
his  death  in  1597,  and  he,  or  his  sons,  maintained  its 
management  until  the  expiration  of  their  lease  in  the  same 
year. 

In  1571  an  Act  of  Parliament  was  passed  making  it 
necessary  for  a  company  of  players  who  wished  to  exercise 
their  profession  without  unnecessary  interference  from  petty 
officials  and  municipal  authorities,  to  secure  a  licence  as  the 
players,  or  servants,  of  a  nobleman ;  lacking  such  licences 
members  of  their  calling  were  classed  before  the  law,  and 
liable  to  be  treated,  as  "vagabonds  and  sturdy  beggars." 
Such  a  licence  once  issued  to  a  company  was  regarded  as 
a  valuable  corporate  asset  by  its  sharers.  At  times  a 
company  possessing  a  licence  would  dimmish  by  attrition 

1  This  interesting  fact,  hitherto  unknown,  has  recently  been  pointed  out  by 
Mrs.  C.  C.  Stopes,  Burbage  and  Shakespeare's  Stage,  London,  1913, 


40     SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

until  the  ownership  of  the  licence  became  vested  in  the 
hands  of  a  few  of  the  original  sharers,  who,  lacking  either 
the  means  or  ability  to  continue  to  maintain  themselves  as 
an  effective  independent  organisation,  would  form  a  con- 
nection with  a  similarly  depleted  company  and  perform  as 
one  company,  each  of  them  preserving  their  licensed  identity. 
In  travelling  in  the  provinces  such  a  dual  company  would 
at  times  be  recorded  under  one  title,  and  again  under  the 
other,  in  the  accounts  of  the  Wardens,  Chamberlains,  and 
Mayors  of  the  towns  they  visited.  Occasionally,  however, 
the  names  of  both  companies  would  be  recorded  under  one 
payment,  and  when  their  functions  differed,  they  seem  at 
times  to  have  secured  separate  payments  though  evidently 
working  together — one  company  supplying  the  musicians 
and  the  other  the  actors. 

If  we  find  for  a  number  of  years  in  the  provincial  and 
Court  records  the  names  of  two  companies  recorded 
separately,  who  from  time  to  time  act  together  as  one 
company,  and  that  these  companies  act  together  as  one 
company  at  the  same  London  theatre,  we  may  infer  that 
the  dual  company  may  be  represented  also  at  times  where 
only  the  name  of  one  of  them  is  given  in  provincial  or 
Court  records.  It  is  likely  that  the  full  numbers  of  such 
a  dual  company  would  not  make  prolonged  provincial  tours 
except  under  stress  of  circumstances,  such  as  the  enforced 
closing  of  the  theatres  in  London  on  account  of  the  plague ; 
and  that  while  the  entire  combination  might  perform  at 
Coventry  and  other  points  within  a  short  distance  of 
London,  they  would  probably  divide  their  forces  and  act 
as  separate  companies  upon  the  occasions  of  their  regular 
provincial  travels. 

Such  a  combination  as  this  between  two  companies  in 


THE  BURBAGES  AND  ALLEYN  41 

some  instances  lasted  for  years.  The  provincial,  and  even 
the  Court  records,  will  make  mention  of  one  company,  and 
at  times  of  the  other,  in  instances  where  two  companies  had 
merged  their  activities  while  preserving  their  respective 
titles.1  A  lack  of  knowledge  of  this  fact  is  responsible  for 
most  of  the  misapprehension  that  exists  at  present  regarding 
Shakespeare's  early  theatrical  affiliations. 

1  A  critical  examination  of  the  records  of  the  English  Dramatic  Companies^ 
1558-1642,  collected  by  Mr.  John  Tucker  Murray,  convinces  me  that  such 
affiliations  as  those  mentioned  above  existed  between  Lord  Hunsdon's  company 
and  the  Earl  of  Leicester's  company  from  1582-83  until  1585,  and  between  the 
remnant  of  Leicester's  company, — which  remained  in  England  when  their  fellows 
went  to  the  Continent  in  1585, — the  Lord  Admiral's  company,  and  the  Lord 
Chamberlain's  company  from  1585  until  1589,  and  following  a  reorganisation  in 
that  year — when  the  Lord  Chamberlain's  and  Leicester's  companies  merged  with 
Lord  Strange's  company — between  this  new  Lord  Strange's  company  and  the 
Lord  Admiral's  company  until  1591,  when  a  further  reorganisation  took  place,  the 
majority  of  Strange's  and  the  Admiral's  men  going  to  Henslowe  and  the  Rose, 
and  a  portion,  including  Shakespeare,  remaining  with  Burbage  and  reorganising 
in  this  year  with  accretions  from  the  now  disrupting  Queen's  company,  including 
Gabriel  Spencer  and  Humphrey  Jeffes,  as  the  Earl  of  Pembroke's  company ; 
John  Sinkler,  and  possibly  others  from  the  Queen's  company,  evidently  joined 
the  Strange- Admiral's  men  at  the  same  time.  The  mention  of  the  names  of 
these  three  men — two  of  them  Pembroke's  men  and  one  a  Strange's  man  after 
1592 — in  the  stage  directions  of  The  True  Tragedy  of  the  Duke  of  York,  can  be 
accounted  for  only  by  the  probable  fact  that  all  three  were  members  of  the 
company  that  originally  owned  the  play,  and  that  this  was  the  Queen's  company 
is  generally  conceded  by  critics. 

In  order  to  restore  their  own  acting  strength  the  depleted  Queen's  company 
appears  now  to  have  formed  similar  affiliations  with  the  Earl  of  Sussex's  company, 
continuing  the  connection  until  1594.  In  this  year  Strange's  men  (now  the  Lord 
Chamberlain's  men)  returned  to  Burbage  while  the  Admiral's  portion  of  the 
combination  stayed  with  Henslowe  as  the  Lord  Admiral's  company.  These  two 
companies  now  restored  their  full  numbers  by  taking  on  men  from  the  Earl  of  Pem- 
broke's and  the  Earl  of  Sussex's  companies  ;  both  of  which  now  cease  to  work  as 
independent  companies,  though  the  portion  of  Pembroke's  men  that  returned  to 
Henslowe,  including  Spencer  and  Jeffes,  appear  to  have  retained  their  own 
licensed  identity  until  1597,  when  several  of  them  definitely  joined  Henslowe  as 
Admiral  men.  Some  Pembroke's  and  Sussex's  men,  not  taken  by  Burbage  or 
Henslowe  in  I594>  evidently  joined  the  Queen's  company  at  that  time.  Hens- 
lowe financed  his  brother  Francis  Henslowe  in  the  purchase  of  a  share  in  the 
Queen's  company  at  about  this  time. 


42     SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST  YEARS 

Under  whatever  varying  licences  and  titles  the  organisa- 
tion of  players  to  which  Shakespeare  attached  himself  upon 
his  arrival  in  London  may  have  performed  in  later  years,  all 
tradition,  inference,  and  evidence  point  to  a  connection  from 
the  beginning  with  the  interests  of  James  Burbage  and  his 
sons. 

Though  other  companies  played  at  intervals  at  Burbage's 
Theatre  at,  and  shortly  following,  1586-87,  the  period  usually 
accepted  as  marking  the  beginning  of  Shakespeare's  con- 
nection with  theatrical  affairs,  it  shall  be  made  evident  that 
the  Lord  Chamberlain's — recently  Lord  Hunsdon's — com- 
pany, of  which  James  Burbage  was  at  that  date  undoubtedly 
the  manager,  made  their  centre  at  his  house  when  perform- 
ing in  London.  That  this  was  a  London  company  with  an 
established  theatrical  home  in  the  most  important  theatre 
in  London,  between  the  years  1582  and  1589,  is  established 
by  the  facts  that  James  Burbage  was  its  manager,  and  the 
infrequency  of  mention  of  it  in  the  provincial  records.  It  is 
probable  that  at  this  early  period  it  was  not  a  full  company 
of  actors,  but  that  Lord  Hunsdon's  licence  covered  Burbage 
and  his  theatrical  employees  and  musicians. 

Numerous  and  continuous  records  of  provincial  visits  for 
a  company  infer  that  it  would  be  better  known  as  a  provincial 
than  as  a  London  company,  while  the  total  lack  of  any 
record  of  Court  performances,  taken  in  conjunction  with  a 
large  number  of  records  of  provincial  performances,  would 
imply  that  such  a  company  had  no  permanent  London 
abiding-place,  such  as  Lord  Hunsdon's  company  undoubtedly 
had  in  Burbage's  Theatre. 

The  fact  that  James  Burbage,  the  leader  of  Leicester's 
company  in  its  palmy  days — 1574  to  1582 — was,  between  1582 
and  1589,  the  leader  of  Lord  Hunsdon's  company,  when 


THE  BURBAGES  AND  ALLEYN  43 

coupled  with  the  fact  that  they  appeared  before  the  Cour 
during  this   interval,  gives  added  evidence  that   it  was   a 
recognised  London  company  at  this  period. 

Much  ambiguity  regarding  James  Burbage's  theatrical 
affiliations  in  the  years  between  1583  and  1594  has  been 
engendered  by  the  utterly  gratuitous  assumption  that  he 
joined  the  Queen's  players  upon  the  organisation  of  that 
company  by  Edmund  Tilney,  the  Master  of  the  Revels,  in 
1583,  leaving  the  Earl  of  Leicester's  players  along  with 
Robert  Wilson,  John  Laneham,  and  Richard  Tarleton  at 
that  time.  We  have  conclusive  evidence,  however,  against 
this  assumption.  James  Burbage  worked  under  the  patron- 
age of  Lord  Hunsdon  and  was  undoubtedly  the  owner  of 
the  Theatre  in  1584,  although  Halliwell-Phillipps,  and  others 
who  have  followed  him  in  his  error  have  assumed,  on  account 
of  his  having  mortgaged  the  lease  of  the  Theatre  in  the  year 
1579,  to  one  John  Hyde,  a  grocer  of  London,  that  the  actual 
occupancy  and  use  of  the  Theatre  had  also  then  been 
transferred.  There  is  nothing  unusual  or  mysterious  in  the 
fact  that  Burbage  mortgaged  the  Theatre  to  Hyde.  In  the 
time  of  Elizabeth,  leases  of  business  property  were  bought, 
sold,  and  hypothecated  for  loans  and  regarded  as  investment 
securities.  Burbage  at  this  time  was  in  need  of  money. 
His  brother-in-law,  John  Brayne,  who  had  engaged  with 
him  to  advance  half  of  the  necessary  expenses  for  the 
building  and  conduct  of  the  Theatre,  defaulted  in  1578  in 
his  payments.  It  is  evident  that  Burbage  borrowed  the 
money  he  needed  from  Hyde,  mortgaging  the  lease  as 
security,  probably  agreeing  to  repay  the  loan  with  interest 
in  instalments.  It  is  not  unlikely  that  it  was  Giles  Allen's 
knowledge  of  this  transaction  that  excited  his  cupidity  and 
led  him  to  demand  £24  instead  of  £14  a  year  when  Burbage 


44     SHAKESPEARE'S    LOST   YEARS 

sought  an  agreed  upon  extension  of  the  lease  in  1585.  As 
Hyde  transferred  the  lease  to  Cuthbert  Burbage  in  1589,  it 
appears  that  he  held  a  ten  years'  mortgage,  which  was  a 
common  term  in  such  transactions.  In  1584  Burbage  was 
clearly  still  manager  of  the  Theatre,  and  in  the  eyes  of  the 
companies  playing  there  from  time  to  time,  who  were  not 
likely  to  be  cognizant  of  his  private  business  transactions, 
such  as  borrowing  of  money  upon  a  mortgage,  was  also  still 
the  owner  of  the  Theatre. 

In  one  of  the  witty  Recorder  Fleetwood's  reports  to  Lord 
Burghley,  dated  i8th  June  I584,1  we  have  the  following 
matter  referring  to  the  Theatre  and  the  Curtain :  "  Upon 
Sondaie,  my  Lord  sent  two  aldermen  to  the  court,  for  the 
suppressing  and  pulling  downe  of  the  theatre  and  curten, 
for  all  the  Lords  agreed  thereunto,  saving  my  Lord 
Chamberlayn  and  Mr.  Vice-Chamberlayn ;  but  we  obtayned 
a  letter  to  suppresse  them  all.  Upon  the  same  night  I  sent 
for  the  Queen's  players,  and  my  Lord  of  Arundell  his 
players,  for  they  all  well  nighe  obeyed  the  Lords  letters. 
The  chiefest  of  her  Highnes'  players  advised  me  to  send  for 
the  owner  of  the  theatre,  who  was  a  stubborne  fellow,  and  to 
bynd  him.  I  dyd  so.  He  sent  me  word  that  he  was  my 
Lord  of  Hunsdon's  man,  and  that  he  would  not  come  to  me, 
but  he  would  in  the  morning  ride  to  my  Lord.  Then  I 
sent  the  under-sheriff  for  hym,  and  he  brought  him  to  me, 
and  at  his  coming  he  showted  me  out  very  justice.  And  in 
the  end,  I  showed  hym  my  Lord  his  master's  hand,  and 
then  he  was  more  quiet.  But  to  die  for  it  he  wold  not  be 
bound.  And  then  I  mynding  to  send  hym  to  prison,  he 
made  sute  that  he  might  be  bounde  to  appeare  at  the  oier 
and  determiner,  the  which  is  to-morrowe,  where  he  said  that 

1  Queen  Elizabeth  and  Her  Times,  by  Thomas  Wright,  1838. 


THE  BURBAGES  AND  ALLEYN  45 

he  was  sure  the  court  wold  not  bynd  hym,  being  a 
counsellor's  man.  And  so  I  have  graunted  his  request, 
where  he  is  sure  to  be  bounde,  or  else  is  lyke  to  do  worse." 
The  "  stubborne  fellow "  was,  without  doubt,  none  other 
than  the  high-spirited  and  pugnacious  James  Burbage,  who 
fought  for  twenty-one  years  over  leases  with  his  avaricious 
landlord,  Giles  Allen,  and  of  whom  Allen's  lawyer  writes  in 
a  Star  Chamber  document  in  1601  :  "  Burbage  tendered  a 
new  lease  which  he,  the  said  Allen,  refused  to  sign  because 
it  was  different  from  the  first  and  also  because  Burbage  had 
assigned  the  Theatre  to  John  Hyde  and  has  also  been  a 
very  bad  and  troublesome  tenant  to  your  orator."  This 
document  also  makes  mention  of  the  fact  as  one  of  the 
reasons  for  Allen  refusing  to  sign  the  new  lease  that  "  Hyde 
conveyed  the  lease  to  Cuthbert,  son  of  James."  The  con- 
veyance here  mentioned  was  made  in  1589.  It  is  plain  that 
Allen's  lawyer  implies  that  the  mortgaging  of  the  Theatre 
to  Hyde  and  its  later  conveyance  to  Cuthbert  Burbage  were 
made,  not  alone  for  value  received,  but  also  for  the  pro- 
tection of  James  Burbage  against  legal  proceedings.  Here, 
then,  we  have  good  evidence  that  James  Burbage,  who,  in 
the  year  1575,  had  been  the  manager,  and  undoubtedly  a 
large  owner,  of  the  Earl  of  Leicester's  company, — at  that 
time  the  most  important  company  of  players  in  England, — 
was  in  1584  a  member  of  Lord  Hunsdon's  company,  and  if 
a  member — in  view  of  his  past  and  present  prominence  in 
theatrical  affairs — also,  evidently,  its  manager  and  owner. 
As  no  logical  reasons  are  given  by  Halliwell-Phillipps,  or  by 
the  compilers  who  base  their  biographies  upon  his  Outlines 
of  the  Life  of  Shakespeare^  for  declining  to  accept  the 
reference  in  Fleetwood's  letter  to  the  "  owner  of  the  Theatre  " 
as  an  allusion  to  Burbage,  whom  they  admit  to  have  been, 


46     SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

and  who  undoubtedly  was,  the  owner  of  the  Theatre  from 
1576  until  he  transferred  his  property  to  his  sons,  Cuthbert 
and  Richard,  shortly  before  he  died  in  I597,1  their  refusal  to 
see  the  light  must  arise  from  their  obsession  that  Burbage 
at  this  time  was  a  member  of  either  Leicester's  or  the 
Queen's  company,  and  as  to  which  one  they  do  not  seem 
to  have  a  very  clear  impression.  Shakespearean  biography 
may  be  searched  in  vain  for  any  other  recorded  facts  con- 
cerning Burbage's  company  affiliations  between  1575  and 
1594.  In  view  of  this  general  lack  of  knowledge  of  Burbage 
in  these  years  the  critical  neglect  of  such  a  definite  allusion 
as  Recorder  Fleetwood  makes  to  the  "  owner  of  the  Theatre  " 
as  a  servant  of  Lord  Hunsdon  is  difficult  to  understand. 

The  alleged  reason  for  the  proposed  suppression  of  the 
Theatre  and  the  Curtain  at  this,  and  at  other  times,  was  that 
they  had  become  public  nuisances  by  attracting  large  crowds 
of  the  most  unruly  elements  of  the  populace,  which  led  to 
disturbances  of  the  peace. 

In  this  same  report  of  Fleet  wood's  to  Burghley,  he 
informs  him  that  on  the  previous  Monday,  upon  his  return 
to  London  from  Kingston,  he  "found  all  the  wardes  full 
of  watches.  The  cause  thereof  was  for  that  neare  the  theatre 


1  Sir  Sidney  Lee,  who  as  a  rule  follows  Halliwell-Phillipps  implicitly,  in 
A  Life  of  William  Shakespeare,  p.  59>  writes  :  "James  Burbage,  in  spite  of 
pecuniary  embarrassments,  remained  manager  and  owner  of  the  Theatre  for 
twenty-one  years";  but  in  a  footnote  on  p.  52,  writes:  "During  1584  an 
unnamed  person,  vaguely  described  as  'the  owner  of  the  Theatre,'  claimed  that 
he  was  under  Lord  Hunsdon's  protection  ;  the  reference  is  probably  to  one  John 
Hyde,  to  whom  the  Theatre  was  mortgaged."  There  is  surely  nothing  vague  in 
the  expression  "owner  of  the  Theatre,"  especially  when  we  remember  that  it 
was  used  by  an  important  legal  functionary  in  one  of  his  weekly  reports  to 
Lord  Treasurer  Burghley.  Recorder  Fleetwood  was  a  very  exact  and  legal- 
minded  official,  and  in  using  the  term  ' '  the  owner  "  he  undoubtedly  meant  the 
owner  and,  it  may  be  implied  from  the  context,  also  the  manager.  Burbage 
was  clearly  manager  and  owner  of  the  Theatre  at  this  period. 


THE  BURBAGES  AND  ALLEYN  47 

or  curten,  at  the  time  of  the  plays,  there  laye  a  prentice 
sleeping  upon  the  grasse;  and  one  Challes  alias  Grostock 
did  turne  upon  the  toe  upon  the  belly  of  the  prentice ;  where- 
upon this  apprentice  start  up,  and  afterwards  they  fell  to 
playne  blowes.  The  companie  increased  of  both  sides  to 
the  number  of  500  at  the  least.  This  Challes  exclaimed 
and  said,  that  he  was  a  gentleman,  and  that  the  apprentice 
was  but  a  rascal  and  some  there  were  littel  better  than 
roogs,  that  took  upon  them  the  name  of  gentleman,  and 
said  the  prentices  were  but  the  skume  of  the  worlde.  Upon 
these  troubles,  the  prentices  began  the  next  daye,  being 
Tuesdaye,  to  make  mutinies,  and  assemblies,  and  conspyre 
to  have  broken  the  prisones,  and  to  have  taken  forth  the 
prentices  that  were  imprisoned.  But  my  Lord  and  I  having 
intelligence  thereof,  apprehended  four  or  fyve  of  the  chief 
conspirators,  who  are  in  Newgate,  and  stand  indicted  01 
their  lewd  demeanours. 

"Upon  Weddensdaye,  one  Browne  a  serving  man  in  a 
blew  coate,  a  shifting  fellowe,  having  a  perilous  wit  of  his 
owne,  intending  a  spoil  if  he  could  have  brought  it  to  passe, 
did  at  the  theatre-doore  quarrell  with  certayn  poore  boyes, 
handicraft  prentices,  and  strooke  some  of  them ;  and  lastlie, 
he,  with  his  sword,  wounded  and  maymed  one  of  the  boyes 
upon  the  left  hand.  Whereupon  there  assembled  near  a 
thousand  people.  This  Browne  did  very  cunningly  conveye 
himself  away,  but  by  chance  he  was  taken  after  and  brought 
to  Mr.  Humprey  Smithe,  and  because  no  man  was  able 
to  charge  him,  he  dismyssed  him." l 

1  This  Browne  was  in  all  probability  the  notorious  Ned  Browne  of  whom 
Robert  Greene  wrote  in  1592,  The  Blacke  Bookes  Messenger ;  "Laying  open 
the  life  and  death  of  Ned  Browne  one  of  the  worst  cutpurses,  crosbiters,  and 
conycatchers  that  ever  lived  in  England.  Herein  he  tells  verie  pleasantly  in 
his  owne  person  such  strange  pranks  and  monstrous  villanies  by  him  and  his 


48     SHAKESPEARE'S    LOST  YEARS 

Though  the  Council  ordered  the  suppression  of  both 
the  Theatre  and  the  Curtain  at  this  time,  Fleetwood's  report 
of  the  disturbances  seems  to  place  the  blame  largely  upon 
the  Theatre.  If  the  Queen's  players  were  then  performing 
at  the  Theatre,  under  the  management  of  Burbage,  it  is 
most  unlikely  that  the  "  chiefest  of  her  Highnes'  players  " — 
who  informed  Fleetwood  that  the  owner  of  the  Theatre 
was  a  "  stubborne  fellow,"  and  advised  that  he  be  sent  for 
and  "  bounde  " — would  have  given  advice  and  information  so 
unfriendly  to  their  own  manager,  and  there  cannot  be  the 
slightest  doubt  that  Burbage  was  "the  owner"  of  the 
Theatre  from  1576  to  1596.  It  is  apparent  that  the  leader 
of  the  Queen's  company  was  willing  that  the  onus  of  the 
disturbances  should  be  placed  upon  the  Theatre  rather  than 
upon  the  Curtain,  where  the  Queen's  players  were  evidently 
performing  at  this  time — Lord  Arundel's  company  tem- 
porarily occupying  the  Theatre,  Lord  Hunsdon's  company 
being  at  that  time  upon  a  provincial  tour.  They  are 
recorded  as  performing  in  Bath  in  June  I584.1 

A  consideration  of  the  records  of  Lord  Hunsdon's 
company,  and  of  previous  companies  that  performed  under 
this  name,  gives  fair  evidence  that  James  Burbage  established 
this  company  in  1582,  at  or  before  which  date  he  severed 
his  active  connection  as  a  player  with  the  Earl  of  Leicester's 
players,  though  still  continuing  his  own  theatrical  organisation 
at  the  Theatre  under  the  patronage  of  Leicester,  as  the 

consorts  performed  as  the  like  was  yet  never  heard  of  in  any  of  the  former 
bookes  of  conycatching,  etc.  By  R.  G.  Printed  at  London  by  John  Danter 
for  Thomas  Nelson,  dwelling  in  Silver  Street,  neere  to  the  sign  of  the  Red 
Crosse,  1592,  Quarto."  Fleetwood  writes  later  of  Browne:  "This  Browne  is 
a  common  cousener,  a  thief  and  a  horse  stealer  and  colloureth  all  his  doings 
here  about  this  town  with  a  sute  that  he  hath  in  the  lawe  against  a  brother 
of  his  in  Staffordshire.  He  resteth  now  in  Newgate." 

1  English  Dramatic  Companies ,  by  John  Tucker  Murray,  vol.  i.  p.  201. 


THE  BURBAGES  AND  ALLEYN  49 

Earl  of  Leicester's  musicians,  and  maintaining  relations 
with  Leicester's  players  as  a  theatre  owner. 

Burbage's  reason  in  1582  for  transferring  from  the 
patronage  of  Leicester  for  his  theatrical  employees  to  that 
of  Lord  Hunsdon  was,  no  doubt,  the  fact  of  Leicester's 
departure  for  the  Continent  in  this  year.  The  constant 
attacks  being  made  by  the  puritanical  authorities  upon 
the  London  theatrical  interests  made  it  expedient  for  him 
to  have  the  protection  of  a  nobleman  whose  aid  could  be 
quickly  invoked  in  case  of  trouble.  As  I  will  show  later 
that  Burbage  was  regarded  with  disfavour  by  Burghley  in 
1589,  it  is  likely  that  the  opposition  he  met  with  from  the 
local  authorities  in  these  earlier  years  was  instigated  by 
Burghley's  agents  and  gossips.  Recorder  Fleet  wood,  chief 
amongst  these,  reports  Burbage's  alleged  transgressions 
with  such  evident  unction  it  is  apparent  that  he  knew  his 
message  would  have  a  sympathetic  reception. 

It  shall  be  shown  that  in  later  years  the  Burbage 
theatrical  organisation  was  anti-Cecil  and  pro-Essex  in  its 
tacit  political  representations;  it  is  not  unlikely  that  it 
was  recognised  as  anti-Cecil  and  pro-Leicester  in  these 
early  years,  and  that  in  this  manner  it  incurred  Burghley's 
ill-will. 

Previous  to  the  year  1567  there  existed  a  company 
under  the  patronage  of  Lord  Hunsdon ;  between  that  date 
and  1582  there  is  no  record  of  any  company  acting  under 
this  nobleman's  licence.  In  July  1582  there  is  record 
that  Lord  Hunsdon's  company  acted  at  Ludlow,  and  upon 
27th  December  1582  we  have  record  that  Lord  Hunsdon's 
players  acted  before  the  Court,  presenting  A  Comedy  of 
Beauty  and  Housewifery.  The  provincial  records  show 
a  few  performances  by  this  company  in  the  provinces  in 
4 


50     SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

every  year,  except  one,  between  1582  and  1589;  while 
1587  shows  no  provincial  performance,  a  payment  of  five 
shillings  is  recorded  in  Coventry  "  to  the  Lord  Chamberlain's 
Musicians  that  came  with  the  Judge  at  the  assizes " ;  these 
were,  no  doubt,  a  portion  of  Burbage's  company,  Lord 
Hunsdon  then  being  Lord  Chamberlain.  This  entry,  how- 
ever, is  immediately  preceded  by  the  entry  of  a  payment 
of  twenty  shillings  to  the  Lord  Admiral's  players.  It  shall 
be  shown  that  the  Admiral's  company  was  affiliated  with 
Burbage  at  this  time. 

The  Lord  Hunsdon  who  patronised  this  company  from 
the  time  of  its  inception,  in  1582,  until  we  hear  no  more 
about  it  in  1589,  was  the  same  Henry  Carey,  Baron  Hunsdon, 
who,  in  1594,  still  holding  the  office  of  Lord  Chamberlain, 
again  took  Burbage  and  his  theatrical  associates  under  his 
protection. 

In  imagining  James  Burbage  as  a  member  of  the  Queen's 
company  of  players  for  several  years  following  1583,  and 
ending  in  about  1591,  it  has  been  customary  also  to  assume 
that  the  Queen's  company  played  regularly,  when  in  London, 
at  Burbage's  Theatre  during  these  years ;  and  that  the  Lord 
Admiral's  company,  between  1585  and  1591,  played  princi- 
pally at  the  Curtain.  There  is  very  slight  foundation  for  the 
former,  and  not  the  slightest  for  the  latter,  assumption,  both  of 
which  were  first  mooted  by  Halliwell-Phillipps,  and  in  which 
he  has  since  been  followed  blindly  by  the  compilers.  The 
supposition  that  the  Queen's  company  made  their  London 
centre  at  the  Theatre  from  1583  onwards,  is  based  upon  the 
disproved  assumption  that  Burbage  was  the  manager  of  this 
company.  This  supposition  has  been  supported  by  the 
argument  that  Tarleton,  who  was  a  member  of  the  Queen's 
company  after  1583,  is  mentioned  in  1592,  in  Nashe's 


THE  BURBAGES  AND  ALLEYN  51 

Pierce  Penniless •,  as  having  "  made  jests  "  "  at  the  Theatre," 
and  again  in  Harrington's  Metamorphosis  of  Ajax  in  1596,  as 
follows :  "  Which  word  was  after  admitted  into  the  Theatre 
by  the  mouth  of  Mayster  Tarleton,  the  excellent  comedian." 
As  Tarleton  died  in  1588  these  references  cannot  apply  to 
the  "  Theatre  "  later  than  this  date,  and  if  they  apply  at  all 
to  Burbage's  Theatre  and  the  term  is  not  used  generically, 
they  apply  to  it  in  the  years  preceding  1583,  when  Tarleton 
played  at  the  Theatre  as  a  member  of  Lord  Leicester's 
company.  The  author  of  Martins  Month's  Mind,  in  1587, 
refers  to  "  twittle  twattle  that  I  learned  in  ale-houses  and  at 
the  Theatre  of  Lanam  and  his  fellowes."  This  also  probably 
refers  to  the  period  preceding  1583,  when  Laneham  was  a 
member  and  evidently  the  leader  of  Leicester's  company  and 
after  Burbage  had  retired  from  its  leadership.  In  News  out 
of  Purgatory,  published  in  1587,  in  which  the  ghost  of 
Tarleton  appears,  "the  Curtaine  of  his  Countenance"  is 
mentioned,  which  apparently  alludes  to  his  recent  connection 
with  that  house.1  While  it  is  possible,  however,  that  the 
Queen's  company  may  have  performed  occasionally  at  the 
Theatre  after  their  formation  in  1582-83  and  before  the  Rose 
was  built  in  1587,  all  evidence  and  logical  assumption 
regarding  the  regular  playing-places  of  the  Queen's  and  the 
Admiral's  companies  when  in  London,  between  1586  and 
1589,  infer  that  the  Queen's  company  played  at  the  Curtain, 
and  after  1587,  at  the  Rose,  and  the  Lord  Admiral's  company, 
in  conjunction  with  the  Lord  Chamberlain's,  at  the  Theatre 
in  summer  and  the  Crosskeys  in  winter. 

Towards  the  end  of  this  period  a  rivalry  existed  between 

1  That  Tarleton  was  a  member  of  the  Queen's  company  in  1588  is  shown  by 
a  reference  in  his  will,  which  is  dated  in  this  year,  to  "my  fellow,  William 
Johnson." 


52     SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

the  Queen's  company  and  the  combined  companies  playing 
under  Burbage  at  the  Theatre,  which  ended  in  1591  in  the 
supersession  for  Court  performances  of  the  Queen's  company 
by  Lord  Strange's  players — a  new  company  of  which  Richard 
Burbage  was  a  member,  which  had  been  organised  out  of  the 
best  actors  from  the  defunct  companies  of  the  Lord  Chamber- 
lain and  Lord  Leicester,  and  with  accretions  from  the  Lord 
Admiral's  company  and  Lord  Strange's  company  of  boy 
acrobats ;  which  latter  had  for  about  a  year  past  been 
affiliated  in  some  manner  with  the  Lord  Admiral's  company, 
which,  in  turn,  had  worked  in  conjunction  with  Burbage's 
players  (the  Lord  Chamberlain's  company)  since  1585-86. 

For  this  connection  between  the  Lord  Admiral's  company 
and  the  company  of  Lord  Hunsdon,  who  was  now  Lord 
Chamberlain,  we  have  record  of  a  Court  performance  on 
6th  January  1586,  which  was  paid  for  on  3ist  January: 
"  The  Lord  Admiral's  and  the  Lord  Chamberlain's  players 
were  paid  for  a  play  before  the  Queen  on  Twelfth  Day." 

While  two  companies  of  players,  meeting  accidentally  in 
the  provinces,  might  at  times  have  combined  their  forces  in 
an  entertainment,  we  may  assume  that  in  such  cases  each 
would  give  a  short  interlude  from  their  own  stock  of  plays, 
and  not  that  they  joined  action  in  the  same  play.  A  per- 
formance before  the  Court,  however,  was  no  haphazard 
thing,  but  something  that  had  been  carefully  rehearsed ; 
hence,  when  we  find — as  in  the  case  of  the  Lord  Admiral's 
players  and  the  Lord  Chamberlain's  players,  mentioned 
above — -members  of  two  companies  uniting  in  a  play  before 
the  Court  and  receiving  one  payment  for  it,  it  is  apparent 
that  they  must  have  acted  in  the  same  play,  and  also  that 
such  a  play  had  been  previously  rehearsed.  Burbage's 
Theatre  being  the  theatrical  home  of  his  company,  known, 


THE  BURBAGES  AND  ALLEYN  53 

until  1585,  as  Lord  Hunsdon's  company,  and  after  that  date, 
when  Lord  Hunsdon  became  Lord  Chamberlain,  as  the 
Lord  Chamberlain's  players,  it  becomes  evident  that  the 
rehearsal  of  plays  for  the  Court  would  take  place  at  the 
Theatre  in  the  summer  or  the  inn  used  by  Burbage  and  his 
company  in  the  winter-time,  and  that  the  members  of  the 
Lord  Admiral's  company,  who  had  acted  with  him  in  the 
Court  performance  mentioned,  would  rehearse  at  the  same 
places.  As  we  find  Lord  Strange's  company  preparing  to 
act  in  the  winter-time  of  15  89  at  the  Crosskeys,  when  they 
were  refused  permission  to  do  so  by  the  Lord  Mayor,  and  as 
we  know  also  that — as  the  Lord  Chamberlain's  men — in 
1594,  after  their  separation  from  Henslowe,  they  again 
sought  leave  to  act  there  in  the  winter  season,  we  may  infer 
that  Burbage's  men  used  this  same  inn  for  winter  perform- 
ances previous  to  1589.  Lord  Hunsdon's  letter  to  the  Lord 
Mayor  in  December  1 594,  referring  to  the  Crosskeys,  reads  : 
"  Where  my  now  company  of  players  have  byn  accustomed 
.  .  ..to  play  this  winter  time  within  the  City." 

While  both  the  Lord  Admiral's  and  Lord  Hunsdon's 
players  performed  occasionally  in  the  provinces  previous  to 
1591,  the  limited  number  of  their  provincial  appearances, 
taken  in  conjunction  with  the  fact  that  they  were  of  sufficient 
importance  to  play  at  intervals  before  the  Court,  during  the 
years  that  the  Queen's  company — which  had  been  specially 
formed  for  that  purpose — held  sway,  implies  that  they  were 
players  of  recognised  importance. 

While  it  is  apparent  that  Burbage  ceased  to  be  an  active 
member  of  Leicester's  players  at  or  soon  after  the  time  he 
undertook  the  responsibilities  of  the  management  of  the 
Theatre,  he  evidently  continued  to  work  under  the  protection 
of  the  Earl  of  Leicester,  as  the  owner  of  the  Theatre  and  of 


54    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST  YEARS 

the  organisation  known  as  Leicester's  musicians,  as  late  as 
1582,  when  he  secured  the  protection  of  Lord  Hunsdon,  and 
in  transferring  took  with  him  his  theatrical  musicians,  who 
now  became  Lord  Hunsdon's  and,  later,  the  Lord  Chamber- 
lain's musicians.  The  first  and  last  mention  of  Lord 
Leicester's  musicians  as  distinct  from  the  players  in  any  of 
the  records  is  in  1582,  when  they  are  mentioned  in  the 
Coventry  records  as  accompanying  Lord  Leicester's  players. 
These  were  evidently  Burbage's  theatrical  musicians  who 
accompanied  Leicester's  men  to  Coventry,  as  we  find  them 
accompanying  the  Admiral's  men  to  the  same  place  a  few 
years  later  under  the  title  of  the  "Lord  Chamberlain's 
Musicians." 

It  is  evident  that  Leicester's  company  continued  to  be 
Burbage's  most  permanent  customer  in  the  use  of  the 
Theatre  as  late  as  1585,  and  that  they  acted  there  until  that 
date  in  conjunction  with  Lord  Hunsdon's  men,  who  were 
Burbage's  theatrical  employees,  and  mostly  musicians. 
Some  time  in,  or  before,  June  1585,  seven  of  the  more 
important  actors  of  Leicester's  company  sailed  for  the 
Continent,  where  they  remained  till  July  1587.  In  June 
1585  the  remnant  of  Leicester's  company  joined  forces  with 
the  new  Admiral's  company.  They  are  recorded  as  acting 
together  at  Dover  in  this  month.  It  is  apparent  that 
Leicester's  men  had  come  to  this  port  to  see  their  fellows 
off  for  the  Continent,  and  that  they  were  joined  there  by  the 
Admiral's  men  by  pre-arrangement.  This  performance  of 
the  Admiral's  men,  in  conjunction  with  the  remnant  of 
Leicester's  men  at  Dover,  is  the  first  record  we  possess  for 
many  years  of  any  company  under  this  title.  The  next 
record  is  a  performance  before  the  Court  in  the  following 
Christmas  season,  when  we  find  them  acting  conjointly  with 


THE  BURBAGES  AND  ALLEYN  55 

the  Lord  Chamberlain's  men,  tte.  Burbage's  men,  recently 
Lord  Hunsdon's.  It  is  evident  that  they  had  now  taken  the 
place  of  Leicester's  men  as  Burbage's  permanent  company  at 
the  Theatre,  holding  much  the  same  relations  to  him  as 
Lord  Strange's  men  held  to  Henslowe  at  the  Rose  between 
1592  and  1594. 

Both  Leicester's  and  Lord  Hunsdon's  companies  dis- 
appear from  the  records  at  the  same  date  (1588-89),  and 
Lord  Strange's  players  appear  for  the  first  time  as  a  regular 
London  company  of  players,  performing  in  the  City  of 
London  and  at  the  Crosskeys  in  the  same  year.  Three 
years  later,  when  we  are  enabled,  for  the  first  time,  to  learn 
anything  of  the  personnel  of  this  company,  we  find  among 
its  members  Thomas  Pope,  George  Bryan,  and,  later  on, 
William  Kempe,  all  of  them  members  of  Leicester's  company 
before  1589.  We  also  find  in  Lord  Strange's  company,  in 
1592,  Richard  Burbage,  who,  without  doubt,  between  1584 
— in  which  year  he  first  began  as  a  player — and  1589,  was  a 
member  of  his  father's  company, — Lord  Hunsdon's, — known 
as  the  Lord  Chamberlain's  company  after  1585.  It  becomes 
apparent,  then,  that  early  in  the  year  1589  a  junction  of 
forces  took  place  between  the  leading  actors  of  the  com- 
panies previously  known  as  Lord  Strange's  tumblers,  Lord 
Hunsdon's,  or,  as  it  was  then  known,  the  Lord  Chamberlain's 
company,  and  the  Earl  of  Leicester's  players — the  new 
organisation  becoming  known  as  Lord  Strange's  players. 
This  company  continued  under  the  patronage  of  Lord 
Strange,  under  his  successive  titles  of  Lord  Strange  and  the 
Earl  of  Derby,  until  his  death  in  April  1594;  they  then,  for 
a  short  period,  passed  under  the  patronage  of  his  widow,  the 
Countess  of  Derby,  when  they  again  secured  the  patronage 
of  Lord  Hunsdon — who  was  still  Lord  Chamberlain, 


56     SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

Before  the  combination  between  these  companies  took 
place  in  December  1588,  or  January  1589,  it  is  evident  that 
an  alliance  of  some  kind  was  formed  between  the  leading 
men  of  Lord  Strange's  tumblers  and  the  Lord  Admiral's 
company.1  For  several  years,  between  about  1580  and  1587, 
Lord  Strange's  company  was  merely  a  company  of  acrobats, 
or  tumblers,  composed  of  boys  and  youths.  In  the  provincial 
records  they  are  mentioned  at  times  as  "Lord  Strange's 
tumblers,"  "  Symons  and  his  fellowes,"  and  as  "  John  Symonds 
and  Mr.  Standleyes  Boyes"  (Lord  Strange's  name  being 
Fernando  Stanley).  The  Lord  Admiral's  players,  on  the 
other  hand,  were  clearly  a  regular  company  of  players  who 
presented  plays,  yet  we  find  them  paid  for  Court  perform- 
ances in  1588  and  1589,  and  also  "For  showing  other  feats 
of  activitye  and  tumblinge."  In  the  following  year  they  are 
again  paid  for  a  Court  performance  where  "  feates  of 
activitye"  are  also  mentioned.  The  last  performances  of 
this  nature  given  by  the  Lord  Admiral's  players  were  on 
27th  December  1590  and  i6th  February  1591.  The  record 
of  payment  for  these  performances  makes  mention  of  "  other 
feates  of  activitye  then  also  done  by  them."  Upon  the  5th 
of  March  1591  the  payment  for  these  performances  is  re- 
corded in  the  Acts  of  the  Privy  Council  to  the  Lord  Admiral's 
company,  while — as  Mr.  E.  K.  Chambers  has  pointed  out — 
in  the  Pipe  Rolls  (542  fol.  156)  these  same  performances 
are  assigned  to  Strange's  men.  It  is  evident,  then,  that  late 
in  1588  (the  first  performance  of  this  nature  being  recorded 
on  the  27th  of  December)  a  junction  took  place  between 
certain  members  of  Lord  Strange's  tumblers  and  the  Lord 

1  Previous  to  the  affiliations  between  Strange's  tumblers  and  the  Lord 
Admiral's  company  they  seem  to  have  maintained  intermittent  relations  with 
the  Queen's  company,  and  are  sometimes  mentioned  as  the  Queen's  tumblers. 


THE  BURBAGES  AND  ALLEYN  57 

Admiral's  men,  who  had  been  connected  since  1585  with  the 
Lord  Chamberlain's  men,  and  that,  at  the  same  time,  the 
leading  members  of  Lord  Leicester's  company  became 
affiliated  with  them. 

In  the  following  Christmas  season,  i59i~92,Lord  Strange's 
players — now  thoroughly  organised  into  a  regular  company 
of  players — gave  six  performances  before  the  Court, 
supplanting  the  formerly  powerful  and  popular  Queen's 
company,  which  gave  only  one  performance  in  that  season, 
and  never  afterwards  appeared  before  the  Court.  There  is 
no  further  record  of  a  Court  performance  by  the  Lord 
Admiral's  company  until  the  Christmas  season  of  1594-95, 
by  which  time  they  had  parted  from  the  Lord  Chamberlain's 
men  and  reorganised  by  absorbing  members  from  other 
companies — such  as  the  Earl  of  Sussex  and  Earl  of 
Pembroke's  companies,  which  at  this  time  disappear  from 
the  records. 

Here,  then,  we  find,  between  the  Christmas  season  of 
1588-89  and  1591-92,  an  amalgamation  into  one  com- 
pany of  a  portion  ot  the  membership  of  four  different 
companies,  all  of  which  had,  immediately  before,  been  asso- 
ciated in  some  measure  with  the  theatrical  interests  of  the 
Burbages. 

While  a  chance  record  remains  which  reveals  official 
action  in  the  formation  of  the  Queen's  company  of  players 
in  1583,  and  no  actual  record  of  official  action  has  yet  been 
found  to  account  for  the  sudden  Court  favour  accorded  the 
new  and  powerful  Lord  Strange's  company  in  1591,  it  is 
very  apparent  that  an  equally  authoritative  purpose  existed  in 
the  latter  case. 

Between  the  years  1574  and  1583  the  Earl  of  Leicester's 
company,  under  the  auspices  of  James  Burbage,  held  the 


58     SHAKESPEARE'S    LOST   YEARS 

position  of  the  leading  company  of  players  in  London. 
During  the  Christmas  and  New  Year  festivities  in  every 
year  but  one  in  this  decade,  Leicester's  company  played 
before  the  Court,  being  supplanted  by  the  newly  formed 
Queen's  company  in  1583-84. 

Howes  states  in  his  Additions  to  Stowe's  Chronicles  that 
"in  1583  twelve  of  the  best  players  were  chosen  out  of 
several  great  Lords'  companies  and  sworn  the  Queen's 
servants,  being  allowed  wages  and  liveries  as  Grooms  of 
the  Chamber,"  and  among  these,  two  players,  Thomas 
(Robert)  Wilson  and  Richard  Tarleton,  were  chosen.  As 
these  players  and  John  Laneham  were  taken  from  Lord 
Leicester's  company  it  has  been  incorrectly  inferred  that 
James  Burbage — who  is  known  to  have  been  the  leader  of 
the  company  as  late  as  1575 — went  with  them  to  the 
Queen's  company  at  this  time. 

It  is  apparent  that  changes  so  important  in  the  several 
companies  affected  by  the  disruption  of  their  memberships 
could  not  be  made  in  a  very  short  time,  and  that  test 
performances  and  negotiations  of  some  duration  preceded 
the  actual  amalgamation  of  the  new  company.  Burbage's 
reason  for  securing  Lord  Hunsdon's  patronage  in  1582  was, 
no  doubt,  because  of  Leicester's  departure  for  the  Continent 
in  this  year  and  the  disorganisation  of  Leicester's  company, 
caused  by  the  formation  of  the  new  Queen's  company  at 
the  same  period. 

Between  1583  and  1590,  while  other  companies  per- 
formed occasionally  at  the  Court,  the  Queen's  company 
performed  during  the  Christmas  festivities  every  season — 
and  usually  upon  several  occasions — in  each  year.  In  the 
Christmas  season  of  1591-92,  however,  they  performed  only 
once,  and  then  for  the  last  time  on  record,  while  Lord 


THE  BURBAGES  AND  ALLEYN  59 

Strange's    company    appeared    in    this    season    upon    six 
occasions.     This    company,   under   its   various   later   titles, 
retained  the  position  it  had   now  attained — of  the  leading 
Court  company — for  the   next   forty  years.     It  is   evident, 
then,   that   the   amalgamation  of  the   leading  members  of 
Lord  Strange's  acrobats,  the  Lord  Chamberlain's,  the  Earl 
of  Leicester's,  and   the   Lord   Admiral's   players,  which   I 
have  shown  began  in  tentative  Court  performances  in  the 
Christmas  season  of  1588-89,  and  which  culminated  in  the 
success  of  the  thoroughly  organised  company  in  the  season 
of  1591-92,  was — at   least   in  its  later   stage — fostered   by 
similar  official  sanction  and  encouragement  to  that  which 
brought   about  the  formation   of  the  Queen's  company  in 
1582-83.     Edmund  Tilney,  the  Master  of  the  Revels,  who 
chose  the  players  for  the   Queen's  company  in   1583,  held 
the  same  position  in  1591,  and  evidently  exercised  a  similar 
function  in   forwarding  the  promotion    of  Lord    Strange's 
company,  and  the  discarding  of  the  Queen's  company  for 
Court  purposes   in   the   latter  year.     It   is  significant   that 
Henslowe,  the   owner  of  the   Rose   Theatre,   where   Lord 
Strange's  players  commenced  to  perform  on  I9th  February 
1592,  was   made  a  Groom  of  the  Privy  Chamber  in   that 
year,  and  that  the  weekly  payments  of  his  fees  to  Tilney, 
in  connection  with  his   new  venture,   begin  at   that   time. 
Henslowe  became  the  financial  backer  of  this  company  in 
1591,  at  which  time,  it  shall  be  shown,  later  on,  that  James 
Burbage's  fortunes  were  at  a  low  ebb,  and  that  he  also  was 
in  disfavour  with  the  authorities.     Henslowe  evidently  was 
brought  into  the  affair  by  Tilney's   influence,  the  office  of 
Groom  of  the  Privy  Chamber  being  a  reward  for  his  com- 
pliance.    It   shall   be  indicated  that  Tilney  and  Henslowe 
had  probably  held  similar  relations  in  connection  with  the 


60     SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

Queen's  company,  which  evidently  performed  at  the  Rose 
under  Henslowe  between  1587  and  1591. 

I  have  shown  a  connection  between  Burbage's  company, 
i.e.  the  Lord  Chamberlain's,  and  the  Lord  Admiral's  com- 
pany between  1585  and  1589,  and  will  now  inquire  into  the 
previous  identity  of  the  latter  company. 

A  company  performing  under  the  licence  of  Lord  Charles 
Howard  of  Effingham  appears  in  the  Court  records  between 
1574  and  1577.  Between  1581  and  June  1585  there  are  no 
provincial  records  of  any  company  performing  under  this 
nobleman's  licence,  and,  until  6th  January  1586,  no  Court 
records.  On  this  latter  date  a  company  licensed  by  this 
nobleman,  who  was  now  Lord  Admiral,  appeared  at  Court 
working  in  conjunction  with  the  Lord  Chamberlain's  com- 
pany. The  last  provincial  visit  of  Lord  Howard's  old 
company  is  at  Ipswich  in  1581.  The  first  provincial  record 
of  his  new  company — the  Lord  Admiral's — is  at  Dover  in 
June  1585,  when  the  entry  reads:  "Paid  unto  my  Lord 
Admiralles  and  my  Lord  Lycestors  players  20  shillings." 
This  seems  to  show  that  the  new  Admiral's  company  had 
joined  forces  with  the  remnant  of  Lord  Leicester's  players, 
the  depletion  of  which  company  at  this  time  was  occasioned 
by  the  departure  of  seven  of  their  members,  including  Kempe, 
Pope,  and  Bryan,  for  Denmark. 

Their  next  recorded  provincial  visit  is  to  Ipswich  under 
date  of  2Oth  February  1586,  when  they  are  mentioned  as  the 
Lord  Admiral's  players.  In  this  same  year  they  appear  at 
Cambridge,  also  as  the  Lord  Admiral's  players.  On  i$th 
November  1586  they  are  recorded  at  Coventry  as  having 
been  paid  twenty  shillings,  and  immediately  following, 
under  the  same  date  of  entry,  the  Lord  Chamberlain's  men 
are  recorded  as  being  paid  three  shillings  and  fourpence, 


THE  BURBAGES  AND  ALLEYN  61 

and  on  I5th  November  1587  they  are  again  recorded  at 
Coventry  as  receiving  twenty  shillings ;  and  again,  under 
the  same  date,  is  an  entry  recording  the  payment  of  five 
shillings  "  to  the  Lord  Chamberlain's  Musicians  that  came 
with  the  Judge  at  the  assizes." 

The  juxtaposition  of  the  entries  on  these  records  of  the 
names  of  these  two  companies  in  1586  and  1587,  and  their 
union  in  a  performance  before  the  Court  in  January  1586, 
shows  that  a  combination  of  some  sort  between  them  was 
formed  in  1585.  Who,  then,  were  the  men  that  composed  the 
Lord  Admiral 's  company  from  1585  to  1589? 

In  1592,  when  Lord  Strange's  players  left  Burbage  to 
perform  under  Henslowe  at  the  Rose,  we  are  assured  that 
Edward  Alley n  was  the  manager  of  the  company,  and, 
though  the  manager  of  Lord  Strange's  company,  that  he 
still  styled  himself  a  Lord  Admiral's  man.  When,  then,  did 
Edward  Alleyn,  who  is  mentioned  in  the  Leicester  records 
in  158435  a  member  of  the  Earl  of  Worcester's  company, 
become  a  Lord  Admiral's  man  and  cease  to  perform  under 
the  licence  of  the  Earl  of  Worcester?  Is  it  not  palpable 
that  the  change  took  place  in  1585,  when  all  records  of 
Worcester's  company  cease  for  several  years  and  a  new 
Lord  Admiral's  company  begins?  The  last  record  of  a 
provincial  performance  for  Worcester's  company  is  at 
Barnstaple  in  1585.  The  Court  and  provincial  records  of 
1586  show  that  within  about  eight  months  of  its  inception 
the  Lord  Admiral's  company  worked  in  conjunction  with 
Burbage's  players — the  Lord  Chamberlain's  men.  That 
this  connection  continued  in  the  case  of  Edward  Alleyn 
and  a  few  others  of  the  Admiral's  men,  who  were  old 
Worcester  men,  and  that  they  preserved  their  licensed 
identity  through  the  several  changes  in  the  title  of  the 


62     SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

company,  until  they  finally  separated  early  in  1594,  shall 
be  made  apparent  in  this  history. 

It  is  evident  that  Edward  Alleyn's  brother,  John  Alleyn, 
joined  the  Admiral's  men  at  about  the  time  of  its  inception, 
when  his  old  company,  Lord  Sheffield's  players,  suddenly 
disappear  from  the  records.  Their  last  recorded  provincial 
performance  is  in  Coventry,  under  date  of  I5th  November 
1585,  the  Lord  Admiral's  men  and  the  Lord  Chamberlain's 
men  being  recorded  there  under  the  same  date  of  entry.  John 
Alleyn  continued  his  connection  with  the  Lord  Admiral's 
men  at  least  as  late  as  July  1589,  when  he  is  mentioned  as 
"  servant  to  me  the  Lord  Admiral "  in  a  letter  from  the 
Privy  Council  to  certain  aldermen.  After  this  he  is  not 
heard  of  again  either  in  connection  with  Lord  Strange's  or 
the  Admiral's  men.  He  was  evidently  one  of  the  discarded 
actors  in  the  reorganisations  of  1589-91. 

Past  critics,  ignoring  the  fact  that  there  are  no  records  of 
either  Court,  London,  or  provincial  performances  for  Wor- 
cester's company  between  1585  and  1589-90,  have  assumed 
that  this  company  was  in  existence  during  these  years,  and 
that  it  was  disrupted  and  reorganised  in  1589,  Edward 
Alleyn  leaving  it  and  joining  the  Lord  Admiral's  men  at 
that  period.  This  inference  is  drawn  erroneously  from  the 
following  facts:  first,  that  Richard  Jones,  who  is  recorded 
in  1584,  in  the  Leicester  records,  as  a  member  of  Lord 
Worcester's  company,  in  January  1589,  sold  to  Edward 
Alleyn  his  share  in  theatrical  properties,  consisting  of  play- 
ing apparel,  playbooks,  instruments,  etc.,  owned  by  him 
conjointly  with  Robert  Brown,  Edward  Alleyn,  and  his 
brother,  John  Alleyn,  all  of  whom  are  supposed  to  have 
been  members  of  Worcester's  company  at  that  time,  as 
Brown  and  Edward  Alleyn  are  also  recorded  in  1584  as 


THE  BURBAGES  AND  ALLEYN  63 

members  of  that  company ;  secondly,  that  John  Alleyn 
is  mentioned  as  a  servant  to  the  Lord  Admiral  later  on  in 
this  year ;  and  thirdly,  that  Edward  Alleyn,  when  managing 
Lord  Strange's  company  in  1593,  is  also  mentioned  as  a 
Lord  Admiral's  man. 

In  the  light  of  the  foregoing  facts  and  deductions  it  is 
evident  that  the  Earl  of  Worcester's  company,  or  at  least  a 
large  portion  of  it,  became  the  Lord  Admirals  company  in 
1585,  and  that,  at  about  the  same  time,  they  became 
affiliated  with  Burbage  and  the  Lord  Chamberlain's  com- 
pany. It  is  probable,  however,  that  in  making  this  change 
they  discarded  some  of  their  old  members  and  took  on 
others,  John  Alleyn  evidently  joining  them  from  Sheffield's 
company  at  that  time. 

The  new  licence  they  sought  and   secured  in  1585  was 
evidently  made  necessary  by  the   disfavour  and  ill  repute 
which  the  ill-regulated  behaviour  of  some  of  their  members — 
whom  they  now  discarded — had  gained  for  them.     In  June 
1583  the  Earl   of    Worcester's   company  was  refused  per- 
mission to  perform  in  Ipswich,  the  excuse  being  given  that 
they   had   passed   through   places   infected  by   the  plague. 
They  were,  however,  given   a  reward  on  their  promise  to 
leave  the  city,  but  instead   of  doing  so  they  proceeded  to 
their  inn  and  played  there.     The  Mayor  and  Court  ordered 
that  the  Earl   of   Worcester    should   be   notified,  that  this 
company  should  never  again  receive  a  reward  from  the  city, 
and   that  they   leave   at   once   on   pain    of   imprisonment. 
Though  the  Mayor  and  Court,  at  the  entreaty  of  the  com- 
pany, agreed  not  to  inform  the  Earl  of  their  misconduct,  it 
is  not  unlikely  that  this  and   similar   happenings   came  to 
his   knowledge,  as  they   seem    to   have  had   little  respect 
for  municipal  authorities.     They  were   again   in  trouble  in 


64     SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST  YEARS 

March  1584,  when  they  quarrelled  with  the  Leicester 
authorities.  Finding  at  their  inn  at  Leicester  the  com- 
mission of  the  Master  of  the  Revels'  company,  which  in 
leaving  Leicester  three  days  before  this  company  had  in- 
advertently left  behind,  they  appropriated  it  and  presented 
it  to  the  Leicester  authorities  as  their  own,  stating  that  the 
previous  company  had  stolen  it  from  them.  Not  being 
believed,  they  were  forced  to  produce  their  own  licence, 
when  they  were  refused  permission  to  play,  but  given  an 
angel  to  pay  for  their  dinner.  Later  in  the  day,  meeting 
the  Mayor  on  the  street,  they  again  asked  leave  to  play, 
and,  being  refused,  abused  the  Mayor  with  "  evyll  and  con- 
temptuous words,  and  said  they  would  play  whether  he 
wold  or  not,"  and  went  "in  contempt  of  the  Mayor  with 
drum  and  trumpet  through  the  town."  On  apologising  later 
to  the  Mayor  and  begging  him  not  to  inform  the  Earl  of 
Worcester,  they  secured  leave  to  play  on  condition  that  they 
prefaced  their  performance  with  an  apology  for  their  mis- 
conduct and  a  statement  that  they  were  permitted  to  play 
only  by  the  Mayor's  goodwill.1 

If  their  past  reputation  had  been  good  in  Leicester  there 
seems  to  be  no  reason  why  they  should  have  wished  to 
perform  under  another  company's  licence.  We  may  infer 
that  these  were  not  isolated  instances  of  their  misbehaviour, 
and  that  their  change  of  title  in  1585  was  made  necessary 
by  reports  of  their  misconduct  coming  to  the  notice  of  the 
old  Earl  of  Worcester.  No  company  of  players  is  known  to 
have  acted  under  this  nobleman's  licence  after  1585. 

In  1589,  when  the  process  of  amalgamation  between  the 
Lord  Admiral's,  the  Lord  Chamberlain's,  and  Lord  Leicester's 
companies,  and  Lord  Strange's  acrobats,  which  resulted  in 

1  English  Dramatic  Companies,  1558-1642,  p.  43,  by  John  Tucker  Murray. 


THE  BURBAGES  AND  ALLEYN  65 

the  formation  of  Lord  Strange's  company,  was  under  way, 
discarded  members  of  their  companies,  including,  no  doubt, 
some  of  the  players  of  the  old  Worcester  company,  secured 
a  licence  from  the  new  Earl  of  Worcester  and  continued  to 
perform — though  mostly  as  a  provincial  company — until 
1603.  Other  old  members,  including  Robert  Brown — the 
leader  of  the  former  Worcester  company — and  Richard 
Jones,  formed  a  new  company  for  continental  performances. 
Brown  and  others  continued  to  make  continental  trips  for 
years  afterwards,  while  Richard  Jones  rejoined  the  Lord 
Admiral's  men  in  1594,  after  they  and  the  Lord  Chamber- 
lain's men  had  separated. 

It  was  plainly,  then,  Richard  Jones'  share  in  the  stage 
properties  of  the  Lord  Admiral's  company  that  Edward 
Alleyn  bought  in  1589.  It  is  apparent  that  he  also  bought 
out  his  brother's  and  Robert  Brown's  shares,  as  neither  of 
them  afterwards  appeared  as  Strange's  or  Admiral's  men. 
This  would  give  Edward  Alleyn  entire  ownership  of  the 
properties  of  the  Admirals  company^  and,  consequently,  an 
important  share  in  the  new  amalgamation. 

It  was  on  Burbage's  stage,  then,  that  this  great  actor 
between  1585  and  1589 — after  having  spent  several  years 
touring  the  provinces — entered  upon  and  established  his 
metropolitan  reputation,  attaining  in  the  latter  year,  at  the 
age  of  twenty-three,  a  large,  if  not  the  largest,  share  in  the 
properties  and  holdings,  and  also  the  management  of 
the  strongest  company  of  players  in  England,  as  well  as 
the  reputation  of  being  the  greatest  actor  of  the  time. 

It  somewhat  enlarges  our  old  conception  of  the  beginnings 
of  Shakespeare's  theatrical  experiences  and  dramatic  inspira- 
tion to  know,  that  when  he  entered  into  relations  with  James 
Burbage,  in  1 586-87,  and  for  from  four  to  six  years  afterwards, 
5 


66    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST  YEARS 

he  had  as  intimate  associates  both  Edward  Alleyn  and 
Richard  Burbage;  two  young  men  of  about  his  own  age, 
who  were  already  winning  a  good  share  of  the  notice  and 
appreciation  that  later  established  them  as  the  leading 
actors  of  the  age.  Which  of  them  was  the  greater  was  one 
of  the  moot  questions  of  the  day  eight  to  ten  years  later, 
when  they  had  become  the  star  actors  of  rival  companies, 
and  those  the  foremost  two  in  London. 

It  is  now  pertinent  to  inquire  as  to  which  of  these 
companies,  if  to  any,  Shakespeare  was  connected  previous 
to  the  amalgamation,  and  also,  whether  or  not  he  became  a 
member  of  Lord  Strange's  company,  along  with  Richard 
Burbage,  and  acted  under,  or  wrote  for,  Alleyn  and 
Henslowe  between  1591  and  1594. 

The  suggestion  which  was  first  made  by  Mr.  Fleay — in 
which  he  has  since  been  followed  by  encyclopaedists  and 
compilers — that  Shakespeare  joined  Lord  Leicester's  com- 
pany upon  one  of  its  visits  to  Stratford-upon-Avon  in  1586 
or  1587,  is  plainly  without  foundation  in  the  light  of  the  fore- 
going facts,  as  is  also  his  assumption  that  Lord  Strange's 
company  was  merely  a  continuation  of  Lord  Leicester's 
company  under  new  patronage. 

Lord  Leicester's  company  spent  the  greater  part  of  the 
years  between  1585-86  and  1589  performing  in  the  provinces. 
The  records  of  its  provincial  visits  outnumber  all  of  those 
recorded  for  the  other  three  companies  concerned  in  the  re- 
organisation of  1589.  If  Shakespeare  acted  at  all  in  these 
early  years  he  must  have  done  so  merely  incidentally. 
When  we  bear  in  mind  the  volume  and  quality  of  his 
literary  productions,  between  1591  and  1594,  it  becomes 
evident  that  his  novitiate  in  dramatic  affairs  in  the  dark 
years,  between  1585-86  and  1592,  was  of  a  literary  rather 


THE  BURBAGES  AND  ALLEYN  67 

than  of  an  histrionic  character,  though  he  also  acted  in  those 
years.  He  would  have  found  little  time  for  dramatic 
composition  or  study  during  these  years  had  he  accompanied 
Lord  Leicester's  company  in  their  provincial  peregrinations. 
Bearing  in  mind  his  later  habit  of  revising  earlier  work  it  is 
not  unlikely  that  some  of  his  dramatic  work,  which  from 
internal  and  external  evidence  we  now  date  between  1591 
and  1594,  is  rewritten  or  revised  work  originally  produced 
before  1591. 

It  is  palpable  that  Shakespeare  had  not  been  previously 
affiliated  with  Lord  Strange's  acrobats,  nor  a  member  of  the 
Lord  Admiral's  company,  and  evident,  in  view  of  the  above 
facts  and  deductions,  as  well  as  of  his  future  close  and  con- 
tinuous connection  with  James  Burbage,  that  his  inceptive 
years  in  London  were  spent  in  his  service,  working  in 
various  capacities  in  his  business  and  dramatic  interests.  It 
is  apparent  that  between  1586-87  and  1588-89  Shakespeare 
worked  for  James  Burbage  as  a  bonded  and  hired  servant. 
In  Henslowe's  Diary  there  are  several  instances  of  such 
bonds  with  hired  servants,  and  covenant  servants,  covering 
terms  of  years  —  usually  from  two  to  three  —  between 
Henslowe  and  men  connected  with  the  Lord  Admiral's 
company.  It  shall  be  shown  later  that  Nashe  in  his 
preface  to  Greene's  Menaphon  alludes  to  Shakespeare  in  this 
capacity. 

The  title  of  Johannes  factotum,  which  Greene,  in  1592, 
bestowed  upon  Shakespeare,  as  well  as  the  term  "rude 
groome,"  which  he  inferentially  applies  to  him,  when  coupled 
with  the  tradition  collected  by  Nicholas  Rowe,  his  earliest 
biographer,  who  writes :  "  He  was  received  into  the  company 
then  in  being,  at  first,  in  a  very  mean  rank,  but  his  admirable 
wit,  and  the  natural  turn  of  it  to  the  stage,  soon  distinguished 


68     SHAKESPEARE'S  LOST  YEARS 

him,  if  not  as  an  extraordinary  actor,  yet  as  an  excellent 
writer,"  all  point  to  a  business  rather  than  to  an  exclusively 
histrionic  connection  with  the  Burbages  in  his  earlier  London 
years.  These  evidences  are  confirmed  by  the  gossip  of 
William  Castle,  who  was  parish  clerk  of  Stratford  for  many 
years,  and  who  was  born  two  years  before  Shakespeare  died, 
and,  consequently,  must  have  known  and  talked  with  many 
people  who  had  known  Shakespeare.  He  frequently  told 
visitors  that  Shakespeare  was  first  received  in  the  playhouse 
as  "  a  servitor."  When  the  legal  usage  and  business  customs 
of  that  period,  as  exhibited  in  legal  records  and  in 
Henslowe's  Diary,  are  considered  it  becomes  apparent  that 
a  youth  of  from  twenty-one  to  twenty-three  years  of  age, 
newly  come  to  London,  with  no  previous  training  in  any 
particular  capacity,  with  a  bankrupt  father  and  without 
means  of  his  own,  could  not  very  well  associate  himself  with 
a  business  concern  in  any  other  capacity  than  that  of  an 
indentured  apprentice  or  bonded  and  hired  servant.  With- 
out such  a  legally  ratified  connection  with  some  employer, 
a  youth  of  Shakespeare's  poverty  and  social  degree,  and  a 
stranger  in  London,  would  be  classed  before  the  law  as  a 
masterless  man  and  a  vagrant.  The  term  "servitor"  then 
does  not  refer  to  his  theatrical  capacity — as  stated  by 
Halliwell-Phillipps — but  to  his  legal  relations  with  James 
Burbage,  his  employer.  Only  sharers  in  a  company  were 
classed  as  "  servants "  to  the  nobleman  under  whose 
patronage  they  worked ;  the  hired  men  were  servants  to  the 
sharers,  or  to  the  theatrical  owner  for  whom  they  worked. 

Being  connected  with  the  Burbages  between  1586-87 
to  1588-89,  whatever  theatrical  training  Shakespeare  may 
have  received  came  undoubtedly  from  his  association  with 
the  Lord  Admiral's  and  Lord  Hunsdon's  companies,  which 


THE  BURBAGES  AND  ALLEYN  69 

performed  at  the  Theatre  in  Shoreditch  as  one  company 
during  these  years,  combining  in  the  same  manner  as 
Strange's  company  and  the  Lord  Admiral's  company  did, 
under  Henslowe  and  Alleyn  at  the  Rose,  between  1592—94. 
Though  in  later  life  he  was  reputed  to  be  a  fair  actor,  he 
never  achieved  great  reputation  in  this  capacity;  it  was 
plainly  not  to  acting  that  he  devoted  himself  most  seriously 
during  these  early  years.  Working  in  the  capacity  of 
handy-man  or,  as  Greene  calls  him,  Johannes  factotum,  for  the 
Burbages,  besides,  possibly,  taking  general  charge  of  their 
stabling  arrangements, — as  tradition  asserts, — he  also,  no 
doubt,  took  care  of  the  theatrical  properties,  which  included 
the  MSS.  and  players'  copies  of  the  plays  owned  by  the 
company.  Though  Shakespeare's  grammar  school  days 
ended  in  Stratford  he  took  his  collegiate  course  in  Burbage's 
Theatre.  During  the  leisure  hours  of  the  years  of  his 
servitorship  he  studied  the  arts  as  he  found  them  in  MS. 
plays.  /  shall  show,  later,  that  Robert  Greene,  through  the 
pen  of  his  coadjutor,  Thomas  Nashe,  in  an  earlier  attack  than 
that  of  1592,  refers  to  Shakespeare's  servitorship  and  to  the 
acquisitions  of  knowledge  he  made  during  his  idle  hours. 
That  he  made  good  use  of  his  time  and  his  materials,  how- 
ever, is  demonstrated  by  the  fact  that  in  the  four  years 
intervening  between  the  end  of  1590  and  the  end  of  1594, 
he  composed,  at  least,  seven  original  plays,  two  long  poems, 
and  over  sixty  sonnets ;  much  of  this  work  being  since  and 
still  regarded — three  hundred  years  after  its  production — 
as  a  portion  of  the  world's  greatest  literature. 

While  it  is  apparent,  even  to  those  critics  and  biographers 
who  admit  the  likelihood  that  Shakespeare's  earliest  connec- 
tion with  theatrical  affairs  was  with  the  Burbage  interests, 
that  Lord  Strange's  company — of  which  they,  erroneously, 


70     SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

suppose  that  he  still  continued  to  be  a  member — ceased  to 
perform  under  James  Burbage  in,  or  before,  February  1592, 
when  they  began  to  play  under  Alleyn  and  Henslowe's 
management  at  the  Rose  Theatre,  no  previous  attempt  has 
been  made  to  explain  the  reasons  for  Lord  Strange's 
company's  connection  with  Henslowe,  or  to  account  for  the 
fact  that  no  plays  written  by  Shakespeare  were  presented 
by  this  company  while  they  performed  at  the  Rose  Theatre, 
though  it  is  very  evident,  and  admitted  by  all  critics,  that 
he  composed  several  original  plays  during  this  interval. 

As  it  is  probable  that  James  Burbage,  through  his  son 
Richard,  retained  some  interest  in  Lord  Strange's  company 
during  the  period  that  it  acted  under  Henslowe's  and 
Alleyn's  management,  the  question  naturally  arises,  Why 
should  Lord  Strange's  company,  which  was  composed  largely 
of  members  of  Leicester's  and  Hunsdon's  company,  both 
of  which,  affiliated  with  the  Admiral's  men,  had  been 
previously  associated  with  the  Burbage  interests — why  should 
this  company,  having  Richard  Burbage  in  its  membership, 
enter  into  business  relations  with  Henslowe  and  perform 
for  two  years  at  the  Rose  Theatre  instead  of  playing  under 
James  Burbage  at  the  Theatre  in  Shoreditch  in  summer, 
and  at  the  Crosskeys  in  winter,  where  they  formerly  played  ? 

A  consideration  of  the  business  affairs  of  James  Burbage 
will  show  that  the  temporary  severance  of  his  business 
relations  with  Strange's  men  was  due  to  legal  and  financial 
difficulties  in  which  he  became  involved  at  this  time,  when 
strong  financial  backing  became  necessary  to  establish  and 
maintain  this  new  company,  which,  I  have  indicated,  had 
been  formed  specially  for  Court  performances.  It  also 
appears  evident  that  he  again  incurred  the  disfavour  of  Lord 
Burghley  and  the  authorities  at  this  time. 


THE  BURBAGES  AND  ALLEYN  71 

In  the  following  chapter  I  analyse  the  reasons  for  the 
separation  of  Strange's  company  from  Burbage  at  this  time 
and  give  inceptive  evidence  that  Shakespeare  did  not 
accompany  Strange's  men  to  Henslowe  and  the  Rose,  but 
that  he  remained  with  Burbage  as  the  manager  and  principal 
writer  for  the  Earl  of  Pembroke's  company — a  fact  regarding 
his  history  which  has  not  hitherto  been  suspected. 


CHAPTER  IV 

SHAKESPEARE   AND   THE   EARL   OF 
PEMBROKE'S   COMPANY 

ALMOST  from  the  time  he  first  began  to  operate 
the  Shoreditch  Theatre  in  1576,  until  his  death  in 
1597,  James  Burbage  had  trouble  from  one  source 
or  another  regarding  his  venture.  Both  the  Theatre,  and 
the  Curtain  at  Shoreditch,  seem  to  have  been  particularly 
obnoxious  to  the  puritanical  element  among  the  local 
authorities,  who  made  numerous  attempts  to  have  both 
theatres  suppressed.  There  were  long  intervals  during  the 
term  of  Burbage's  lease  of  the  Theatre  when,  owing  to 
various  causes,  both  the  Theatre  and  the  Curtain  were 
closed.  Among  the  causes  were — the  prevalence  of  the 
plague,  alleged  rioting,  and  the  performance  of  plays  which 
infringed  the  law  prohibiting  the  presentation  of  matters 
of  Church  and  State  upon  the  stage.  Burbage's  Theatre 
came  into  disfavour  with  the  authorities  in  1589  owing  to 
the  performance  there  of  plays  relating  to  the  Martin 
Marprelate  controversy;  and  that  it  was  the  combined 
Strange's  and  Admiral's  company  that  was  concerned  in 
these  performances,  and  not  the  Queen's,  as  is  usually 
supposed,  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  in  November,  when 
they  moved  to  their  winter  quarters  in  the  City  at  the 
Crosskeys,  the  Lord  Mayor,  John  Hart,  under  instructions 

72 


EARL  OF  PEMBROKE'S  COMPANY  73 

from  Lord  Burghley,  issued  orders  prohibiting  them  from 
performing  in  the  City.  It  is  not  unlikely  that  their 
connection  with  the  Martin  Marprelate  affair  earlier  in  the 
year  at  the  Theatre,  and  their  deliberate  defiance  of  the 
Mayor's  orders  in  performing  at  the  Crosskeys  on  the  after- 
noon of  the  day  the  prohibition  was  issued,  delayed  the  full 
measure  of  Court  favour  presaged  for  them  by  their  recent 
drastic — and  evidently  officially  encouraged — reorganisation. 
When  they  performed  at  Court  in  the  Christmas  seasons 
of  1589-90  and  1590-91,  they  did  so  as  the  Lord  Admiral's 
men ;  and  in  the  latter  instance,  while  the  Acts  of  the  Privy 
Council  credit  the  performance  to  the  Admiral's,  the  Pipe 
Rolls  assign  it  to  Strange's  men.1  Seeing  that  the  Admiral's 
men  had  submitted  dutifully  to  the  Mayor's  orders,  and  that 
Lord  Strange's  men — two  of  whom  had  been  committed 
to  the  Counter  for  their  contempt — were  again  called  before 
the  Mayor  and  forbidden  to  play,  the  company's  reason  for 
performing  at  Court  at  this  period  as  the  Lord  Admiral's 
men  is  plainly  apparent.  It  is  not  unlikely  that  their 
transfer  to  Henslowe's  financial  management  became 
necessary  because  of  Burbage's  continued  disfavour  with 
Lord  Burghley  and  the  City  authorities,  as  well  as  his 
financial  inability  adequately  to  provide  for  the  needs  of  the 
new  Court  company,  in  1591.  In  the  defiance  of  Burghley's 
and  the  Mayor's  orders  by  the  Burbage  portion  of  the 
company,  and  the  subservience  of  the  Alleyn  element  at  this 
time,  is  foreshadowed  their  future  political  bias  as  independent 
companies.  From  the  time  of  their  separation  in  1594  until 
the  death  of  Elizabeth,  the  Lord  Admiral's  company  repre- 
sented the  Cecil- Ho  ward,  and  Burbage's  company  the  Essex 
factional  and  political  interests  in  their  covert  stage  polemics. 

1  E.  K.  Chambers  in  Modern  Language  Review,  Oct.  1906. 


74     SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

Shakespeare's  friendship  and  intimacy  with  Essex's  fidus 
Achates,  the  Earl  of  Southampton,  between  1591  and  1601, 
served  materially  to  accentuate  the  pro-Essex  leanings 
of  his  company.  This  phase  of  Shakespeare's  theatrical 
career  has  not  been  investigated  by  past  critics,  though 
Fleay,  Simpson,  and  Feis  recognise  the  critical  and  bio- 
graphical importance  of  such  an  inquiry,  while  the  compilers 
do  not  even  suspect  that  such  a  phase  existed. 

While  the  Curtain  seems  to  have  escaped  trouble  arising 
from  its  lease  and  its  ownership,  the  Theatre  came  in  for 
more  than  its  share.  The  comparative  freedom  of  the 
Curtain  from  the  interference  and  persecution  of  the  local 
authorities  in  these  years  was  evidently  due  to  the  fact  that 
it  was  the  recognised  summer  home  of  the  Queen's  company 
between  1584  and  1591.  It  is  evident  that  during  the 
winter  months  the  Queen's  company  performed  at  the  Rose 
between  1587 — when  this  theatre  was  erected — and  the  end 
of  1590;  it  was  superseded  at  Court  by  Lord  Strange's 
company  at  the  end  of  1591,  and  was  disrupted  during 
this  year — a  portion  of  them  continuing  under  the  two 
Buttons,  as  the  Queen's  men.  The  Rose,  being  the  most 
important,  centrally  located,  theatre  available  for  winter 
performances  during  these  years,  would  naturally  be  used  by 
the  leading  Court  company.  It  is  significant  that  Lord 
Strange's  company  commenced  to  play  there  when  they 
finally  supplanted  the  Queen's  company  at  Court.  It  is 
probable  that  they  played  there  also  before  it  was  recon- 
structed during  1591. 

The  large  number  of  old  plays  formerly  owned  by  the 
Queen's  company,  which  came  into  the  hands  of  the 
companies  associated  with  Henslowe  and  Burbage  at  this 
time,  suggests  that  they  bought  them  from  Henslowe,  who 


EARL  OF  PEMBROKE'S  COMPANY  75 

had  retained  them,  and  probably  other  properties,  in  pay- 
ment for  money  owed  him  by  the  Queen's  company  which, 
having  been  several  years  affiliated  with  him  at  the  Rose, 
would  be  likely  to  have  a  similar  financial  experience  to 
that  of  the  Lord  Admiral's  men,  who,  as  shown  by  the 
Diary,  got  deeply  into  his  debt  between  1594  and  1598. 
The  Queen's  company  was  plainly  not  in  a  prosperous 
financial  condition  in  1591.  It  is  apparent  also  that  some 
Queen's  men  joined  Strange's,  and  Pembroke's  men  at  this 
time  bringing  some  of  these  plays  with  them  as  properties. 

In  building  the  Theatre,  in  1576,  Burbage  had  taken  his 
brother-in-law,  one  John  Brayne,  into  partnership,  agreeing 
to  give  him  a  half-interest  upon  certain  terms  which  Brayne 
apparently  failed  to  meet.  Brayne,  however,  claimed  a 
moiety  and  engaged  in  a  lawsuit  with  Burbage  which 
dragged  along  until  his  death,  when  his  heirs  continued  the 
litigation.  Giles  Allen,  the  landlord  from  whom  Burbage 
leased  the  land  on  which  he  had  built  the  Theatre,  evidently 
a  somewhat  sharp  and  grasping  individual,  failed  to  live  up 
to  the  terms  of  his  lease  which  he  had  agreed  to  extend, 
provided  that  Burbage  expended  a  certain  amount  of  money 
upon  improvements.  There  was  constant  bickering  between 
Allen  and  Burbage  regarding  this  matter,  which  also  eventu- 
ated in  a  lawsuit  that  was  carried  on  by  Cuthbert  and 
Richard  Burbage  after  their  father's  death  in  1597.  Added 
to  these  numerous  irritations,  came  further  trouble  from  a 
most  unlooked-for  source.  In  1581,  Edmund  Peckham,  son 
of  Sir  George  Peckham,  on  the  most  shadowy  and  far- 
fetched grounds,  questioned  the  validity  of  Giles  Allen's  title 
to  the  land  he  had  leased  to  Burbage,  and  not  only  entered 
a  legal  claim  upon  it,  but  found  a  jury  to  agree  with  him. 
This  suit  also  continued  for  years. 


76     SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST  YEARS 

In  Burbage  and  Shakespeare's  Stage,  which  is  the  best 
account  yet  written  of  Burbage  and  his  affairs,  Mrs.  Stopes 
evidently  gives  all  available  details  regarding  his  legal 
embarrassments.  Mrs.  Stopes'  account  makes  it  clear  that 
by  the  year  1591,  James  Burbage  could  not  have  amassed 
much  wealth  in  the  practice  of  his  profession,  though  we  may 
infer  that  he  had  enriched  a  number  of  lawyers.  In  the 
legal  records  examined  by  Mrs.  Stopes,  I  learn  that  upon 
loth  January  1591  an  attachment  on  the  Theatre  was 
awarded  against  Burbage  for  contempt  of  court  on  the  plea 
of  one  Robert  Miles,  and  though  several  attempts  were 
made  in  the  meantime  to  have  the  matter  adjudicated,  that 
the  attachment  was  still  in  force  in  November  1591 ;  there  is 
apparently  no  record  as  to  when  and  how  the  matter  was 
finally  settled  and  the  attachment  lifted.  It  evidently  held 
three  months  later  when  Lord  Strange's  company  commenced 
to  perform  under  Henslowe  at  the  Rose,  or  at  least  as  late 
as  December  and  January  1591-92,  in  which  months 
Henslowe  repaired  and  enlarged  the  Rose  in  anticipation  of 
the  coming  of  Strange's  company.  I  have  reason  to  believe 
that  some  settlement  was  made  regarding  the  attachment 
upon  Burbage's  Theatre  early  in  1592,  and  that  the  Earl  of 
Pembroke's  company  played  there  when  in  London  from 
that  time  until  we  lose  sight  of  them  late  in  1593.  In  the 
spring  of  1594  their  membership  and  properties  were 
absorbed  by  the  Lord  Admiral's  company  and  Lord 
Strange's  company,  most  of  the  properties  they  had  in  the 
way  of  plays  going  to  the  latter. 

The  Rose  Theatre  was  first  erected  in  1587.  By  the 
year  1592,  when  Lord  Strange's  players  commenced  to 
appear  there,  it  evidently  needed  to  be  repaired  and  enlarged. 
Between  the  7th  of  March  and  the  end  of  April  1592, 


EARL  OF  PEMBROKE'S  COMPANY  77 

Henslowe  paid  out  over  £100  for  these  repairs;  the  work 
paid  for  having  been  done  in  the  few  months  preceding 
1 9th  February  1592,  when  Lord  Strange's  company  com- 
menced to  perform  there. 

Henslowe  was  much  too  careful  a  business  man  to  invest 
the  large  sum  of  money  in  the  enlargement  and  repair  of  the 
Rose  Theatre,  which  he  did  at  this  time,  without  the  assur- 
ance of  a  profitable  return.  When  his  other  business  trans- 
actions, as  shown  in  his  Diary,  are  considered  it  becomes 
apparent  that  in  undertaking  this  expenditure  he  would 
stipulate  for  the  use  of  his  house  by  Lord  Strange's  men  for 
a  settled  period,  probably  of,  at  least,  two  years,  and  that 
Edward  Alleyn,  who  was  the  manager  of  Lord  Strange's 
men  at  this  time,  and  continued  to  be  their  manager  for  the 
next  two  years, — though  still  remaining  the  Lord  Admiral's 
man, — was  Henslowe's  business  representative  in  the  company. 
Alleyn  married  Henslowe's  stepdaughter  in  October,  this 
year,  and  continued  to  be  his  business  associate  until 
Henslowe's  death,  when,  through  his  wife,  he  became  his 
heir.  Lord  Strange's  company,  under  this  and  the  later 
title  of  the  Lord  Chamberlain's  men,  continued  to  perform  at 
theatres  owned  or  operated  by  Henslowe,  and  probably  also 
under  Alleyn's  management,  until  the  spring  of  1594,  when 
it  appears  that  they  returned  to  Burbage  and  resumed  perform- 
ances, as  in  1589-91,  at  the  Theatre  in  Shoreditch  in  summer, 
and  at  the  Crosskeys  in  winter. 

The  assumption  that  Shakespeare  was  a  member  of  Lord 
Strange's  company  while  it  was  with  Henslowe,  is  based 
upon  three  things:  first,  the  undoubted  fact  that  his  close 
friend  and  coadjutor,  Richard  Burbage,  was  one  of  the  lead- 
ing members  of  the  company  at  that  time ;  secondly,  that 
The  First  Part  of  Henry  VI.,  in  an  early  form,  was  presented 


78     SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

as  a  revised  play  by  Lord  Strange's  men  at  the  Rose,  upon 
3rd  March  1592,  and  upon  several  subsequent  occasions 
while  they  were  with  Henslowe ;  thirdly,  an  alleged  refer- 
ence to  Shakespeare's  name  in  Peele's  Edward  /.,  which  was 
owned  by  the  Lord  Admiral's  players  after  1594,  and  presum- 
ably written  for  them  when  Shakespeare  acted  with  the 
company  before  1592.  Let  us  examine  these  things  in 
order. 

At  first  sight  it  is  a  plausible  inference,  in  view  of  Shake- 
speare's earlier,  and  later,  connection  with  the  Burbages,  that 
he  should  continue  to  be  associated  with  Richard  Burbage 
during  these  two  years.  When  the  reason  for  the  formation 
of  Lord  Strange's  company  is  remembered,  however,  it 
becomes  clear  that  Richard  Burbage  would  be  a  member 
for  the  very  reason  that  Shakespeare  would  not.  The 
intention  in  the  formation  of  this  company  being  to  secure 
an  organisation  of  the  best  actors  for  the  services  of  the 
Court,  it  is  evident  that  Richard  Burbage — who  even  at  this 
early  date  was  one  of  the  leading  actors  in  London — would 
be  chosen.  Shakespeare  never  at  any  time  attained  distinction 
as  an  actor. 

The  presentation  of  Henry  VI.,  Part  /.,  by  Lord  Strange's 
players,  as  a  reason  for  Shakespeare's  membership,  infers 
that  he  was  the  author  of  this  play,  or,  at  least,  its  reviser 
in  1592,  and  that  the  Talbot  scenes  are  his.  This,  conse- 
quently, implies  that  Nashe's  commendatory  references  to 
these  scenes  were  complimentary  to  work  of  Shakespeare's 
in  1592.  It  is  evident  that  the  play  of  Henry  F/.,  acted 
by  Lord  Strange's  men  in  March  1592,  and  commended 
by  Nashe,  was  much  the  same  play  as  Henry  VI.,  Part  /., 
included  in  all  editions  of  Shakespeare.  Textual  criticism 
has  long  since  proved,  however,  that  this  was  not  a  new 


EARL  OF  PEMBROKE'S  COMPANY  79 

play  in  1592  —  though  marked  "ne"  by  Henslowe  —  but 
merely  a  revision.  Three  hands  are  distinctly  traceable  in 
it ;  the  unknown  original  author  who  wrote  the  opening 
lines : 

"  Hung  be  the  heavens  with  black,  yield  day  to  night ! 
Comets,  importing  change  of  times  and  states, 
Brandish  your  crystal  tresses  in  the  sky, 
And  with  them  scourge  the  bad  revolting  stars 
That  have  consented  unto  Henry's  death  ! " 

Whoever  wrote  these  lines,  it  is  very  palpable  that  Shake- 
speare did  not.  The  second  hand  in  the  play  was  the 
reviser  of  1592  who  introduced  the  Talbot  passages.  There 
cannot  be  the  slightest  doubt  that  this  was  George  Peele, 
who  in  1592,  and  for  some  time  before  and  later,  was  the 
principal  producer  and  reviser  of  plays  for  the  Lord 
Admiral's  company.  The  classical  allusions  in  the  Talbot 
scenes,  and  the  manner  in  which  they  are  always  lugged 
in  by  the  ear,  as  though  for  adornment,  plainly  proclaim 
the  hand  of  Peele,  and  as  plainly  disassociate  Shake- 
speare from  their  composition.  The  third  hand  is  clearly 
Shakespeare's.  The  "  Temple  Garden "  scene  has  been 
accepted  by  practically  all  critics  as  unquestionably  his 
work ;  it  is  not  the  work,  either,  of  his  "  pupil  pen."  His 
revision  was  evidently  not  made  until  1594,  when  the 
Lord  Chamberlain's  company  brought  the  MS.  with  them 
as  a  portion  of  their  properties,  upon  their  return  to 
Burbage.  The  references  to  red  and  white  roses,  as  the 
badges  of  Lancaster  and  York,  were  evidently  then  intro- 
duced by  Shakespeare  in  order  to  link  together,  and  give 
dramatic  continuity  to,  the  whole  historical  series  connected 
with  the  Wars  of  the  Roses,  upon  which  he  had  already 
worked,  or  was  then  working  for  his  company.  There  is 
not  a  single  classical  allusion  in  the  "  Temple  Garden " 


80     SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

scene,  while  there  are  twenty-seven  classical  allusions  in 
the  whole  play :  eight  of  them  being  in  the  Talbot  passages. 
In  Shakespeare's  Richard  IL — which  I  shall  give  good 
evidence  was  written  within  about  a  year  of  the  time 
that  Henry  VI.  was  presented  as  a  new  play — there  are 
two  classical  allusions.  In  any  authentic  play  by  Marlowe, 
Greene,  or  Peele  of  an  equal  length  there  will  be  found 
from  forty  to  eighty  classical  allusions,  besides,  as  a  rule, 
a  number  of  Latin  quotations.  In  revising  the  first  part 
of  Henry  VL  in,  or  after,  1594,  it  is  evident  that  Shake- 
speare eliminated  many  classical  allusions,  and  that  in  the 
early  work  which  he  did  upon  The  Contention,  and  also  in 
his  final  revision  of  The  Contention^  into  the  second  and 
third  parts  of  Henry  VL,  he  eliminated  classical  allusions, 
reducing  the  average  in  these  plays  to  from  thirty  to 
thirty-five.  In  his  own  acknowledged  historical  plays, 
Richard  II. ,  King  John,  Richard  ///.,  Henry  IV.,  and 
Henry  F.,  there  is  not  an  average  of  six  classical  allusions. 

When  the  settled  animus  which  Nashe,  in  conjunction 
with  Greene,  between  1589-92,  displays  against  Shakespeare 
is  better  understood,  the  utter  improbability  of  his  referring 
to  Shakespeare's  work  in  a  laudatory  manner  in  the  latter 
year  shall  readily  be  seen.  When,  also,  the  high  praise 
which  Nashe  bestows  upon  Peele  in  the  same  publications 
in  which  he  attacks  Shakespeare  is  noted,  it  becomes  evident 
that  he  again  intends  to  commend  Peele  in  his  compli- 
mentary allusion  to  the  Talbot  scenes.  Peele  was  the 
principal  writer  and  reviser  for  Henslowe  at  this  period, 
while  not  one  of  Shakespeare's  plays  is  mentioned  in  his 
whole  Diary. 

While  I  believe  that  the  reference  to  Shakespeare's 
name  in  Edward  I. — which  was  first  noticed  by  Mr.  Fleay — 


EARL  OF  PEMBROKE'S  COMPANY  81 

was  actually  intended  by  Peele,  the  passage  in  which  it 
occurs  pertains  to  an  early  form  of  the  play,  which  was 
old  when  it  was  published  in  1593.  It  was  written  by 
Peele  for  the  Lord  Admiral's  company  before  their  con- 
junction with  Strange's  men  under  Henslowe,  and  at  the 
time  when  they  acted  with  Lord  Hunsdon's  company  at 
the  Theatre  in  Shoreditch  in  summer,  and  at  the  Crosskeys 
in  the  winter.  It  is  significant  that  this  play  was  not  acted 
by  Lord  Strange's  men  during  their  tenure  of  the  Rose 
Theatre,  and  that  in  1595,  after  they  had  separated  from 
Henslowe,  it  was  revised  and  presented  as  a  new  play  by 
the  Lord  Admiral's  company.  It  is  quite  likely  that  it 
was  the  property  of  Pembroke's  company  in  1 592-93.  The 
allusion  to  Shakespeare  in  this  play  is  probably  the  first 
evidence  we  possess  of  the  well-authenticated  fact  that  as 
an  actor  he  usually  appeared  in  kingly  parts.  It  is  recorded 
of  him  that  he  played  the  part  of  the  ghost  in  Hamlet,  and 
his  friend,  John  Davies,  the  poet,  writes  in  1603  : 

"  Some  say,  good  Will,  which  I  in  sport  do  sing, 
Hadst  thou  not  played  some  kingly  parts  in  sport, 
Thou  hadst  been  a  companion  for  a  King." 

The  reference  to  his  name  by  Peele  in  Edward  /.,  in  which 
play  Shakespeare  evidently  took  the  part  of  John  Baliol, 
the  Scottish  King,  is  as  follows : 

"  Shine  with  thy  golden  head, 
Shake  thy  spcare,  in  honour  of  his  name, 
Under  whose  royalty  thou  wear'st  the  same." 

Against  the   assumption   that   Shakespeare  acted  with 

Lord  Strange's  company  under  Alleyn  and  Henslowe  for 

two  years,  there  is  some   positive,  and   much   inferential, 

evidence,  the   strongest  of  the   latter   being  that   between 

6 


82     SHAKESPEARE'S  LOST  YEARS 

the  end  of  1590  and  the  middle  of  1594,  at  about  which 
latter  date  the  Lord  Chamberlain's  company  parted  from 
Henslowe,  Shakespeare  produced, — as  I  shall  later  demon- 
strate,— in  addition  to  Venus  and  Adonis \  Lucrece,a.nd  nearly 
half  of  the  whole  body  of  his  Sonnets,  at  least  seven  new 
plays,  not  one  of  which  was  performed  at  the  Rose  by 
Lord  Strange's  company.  The  remainder  of  the  evidence 
against  this  assumption  shall  develop  in  this  history. 

We  may  infer  that  Henslowe  in  entering  into  business 
relations  with  Lord  Strange's  company  would  make  quite 
as  binding  a  contract  with  them  as  we  find  him  making 
a  few  years  later  with  the  Lord  Admiral's  men.  In  those 
contracts  he  binds  the  players  to  play  at  the  Rose  and 
"  at  no  other  house  publicly  about  London " ;  further 
stipulating  that  should  the  London  theatres  be  closed  by 
the  authorities  for  any  reason  "then  to  go  for  the  time 
into  the  country,  then  to  return  again  to  London." 

The  fact  that  his  manager,  and  son-in-law,  Edward 
Alleyn,  accompanied  Lord  Strange's  men  upon  their  pro- 
vincial tour  in  1593,  when,  owing  to  the  plague,  the  London 
theatres  were  closed  by  order  of  the  Council,  implies  a 
similar  understanding  with  this  company. 

The  words  "  in  any  other  house  publicly  about  London  " 
in  Henslowe's  contracts  with  players  apparently  infer  that 
they  retained  the  right  of  giving  private  and  Court  per- 
formances upon  their  own  account  and  for  their  own  profit. 
The  money  they  received  for  Court  performances  appears 
to  have  belonged  exclusively  to  the  players,  as  the  total 
amount  collected  by  them  is  at  times  turned  over  to 
Henslowe  in  part  payment  of  their  corporate  indebtedness 
to  him,  and  credited  to  them  in  full.  Had  Henslowe  shared 
in  these  payments  his  portion  would  have  been  deducted 


EARL  OF  PEMBROKE'S  COMPANY  83 

from  the  credits.     It  is  evident  that  he  was   merely  the 
financial  backer  of,  and  not  a  sharer  in,  this  company. 

In  the  apparently  comprehensive  list  of  the  members 
of  Lord  Strange's  company — as  it  existed  early  in  1 592 — 
which  was  owned  by  Edward  Alleyn  and  is  now  preserved 
at  Dulwich  College,  while  Pope  and  Bryan,  who  came  from 
Leicester's  company,  and  Richard  Burbage  and  others, 
no  doubt,  who  came  from  Lord  Hunsdon's  company  are 
mentioned,  Shakespeare's  name  does  not  appear.  There 
is  no  reason  why  he  should  not  have  been  mentioned  in 
this  list  had  he  been  a  member  of  the  company  at  that 
time.  About  three  years  later,  when  Strange's  men  had 
separated  from  Henslowe  and  the  Admiral's  men,  and 
returned  to  Burbage,  Shakespeare  is  mentioned,  with 
William  Kempe  and  Richard  Burbage,  in  the  Court  records 
as  receiving  payment  for  Court  performances,  from  which 
we  may  infer  that  he  was  regarded  as  one  of  the  leading 
members  of,  and  was  also  a  sharer  in,  the  company  at 
this  time. 

Where,  then,  was  Shakespeare  during  the  period  of 
Henslowe's  management  ?  What  company  of  players  per- 
formed in  the  plays  he  produced  between  about  the  end  of 
1590  and  the  middle  of  1594,  which  are — The  Comedy  of 
Errors,  Love's  Labour's  Lost,  Love's  Labours  Won,  The 
Two  Gentlemen  of  Verona,  King  John,  Richard  II.,  Richard 
III.,  and  Midsummer  Night's  Dream?  Later  on  I  shall 
advance  conclusive  evidence  to  prove  that  all  of  these  plays 
were  written  in  this  interval,  though  most  of  them  were 
materially  revised  in  later  years. 

In  order  to  answer  these  questions  it  will  be  advisable  to 
revert  to  a  consideration  of  the  drastic  changes  which  took 
place  between  the  end  of  1588  and  the  beginning  of  1592,  in 


84     SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

the  comparative  standing,  as  well  as  in  the  personnel,  of 
several  of  the  most  prominent  companies  of  players.  I  have 
shown  that  early  in  1589  a  union  took  place  between  the 
leading  members  of  Lord  Strange's  tumblers,  the  Lord 
Admiral's,  the  Lord  Chamberlain's,  and  the  Earl  of  Leicester's 
men.  If  an  average  of  only  three  men  were  taken  from  each 
of  these  companies — forming  a  company  of  twelve  players, 
which  was  then  regarded  as  a  large  company — it  would 
necessarily  leave  a  considerable  number  of  men  free  to  make 
new  connections,  as  three  of  the  companies  involved  in  the 
changes  disappear  from  the  records  at  that  time.  Thereafter 
we  hear  no  more  of  Lord  Strange's  tumblers,  nor  of  Lord 
Leicester's,  nor  Lord  Hunsdon's  players.  It  is  not  unlikely, 
then,  that  while  some  of  the  players  discarded  from  the  three 
companies  that  had  gone  out  of  existence  would  drift  into 
different  existing  companies,  that  some  of  them  would  unite 
to  form  a  new  company.  The  disruption  of  the  Queen's 
company  in  1590-91  would  also  leave  some  men  at  large. 
As  most  of  these  men  had  been  previously  connected  with 
well-known  companies,  which  performed  principally  in 
London,  it  is  likely  that  they  would  endeavour  to  continue 
as  London  performers  instead  of  forming  a  provincial 
company. 

That  such  a  company  for  London  performances  was 
actually  formed  some  time  in  1591  is  evident  in  the  appearance 
of  a  company — hitherto  unheard  of  for  sixteen  years— under 
the  patronage  of  the  Earl  of  Pembroke.  Between  the  years 
1576  and  1592  there  is  no  mention  of  a  company  acting 
under  this  nobleman's  licence  in  either  the  provincial  or  Court 
records,  nor  is  there  any  mention  of,  or  reference  to,  such  a 
company  in  any  London  records. 

All  we  know  about  this  new  company  is  that  record  of  it 


EARL  OF  PEMBROKE'S  COMPANY  85 

appeared  for  the  first  time  in  December  1592,  when  it  played 
twice  before  the  Court;  that  it  returned  to  London  in  the 
early  autumn  of  1593  after  a  disastrous  tour  in  the  provinces, 
being  compelled  to  pawn  a  portion  of  its  properties  to  pay 
expenses ;  that  Marlowe  wrote  Edward  II.  for  it  in  about 
rS93  J  that  The  True  Tragedy  of  the  Duke  of  York  was  one 
of  its  properties,  and  that  Shakespeare  was  connected  with 
either  the  revision  or  the  theatrical  presentation  of  this  play 
at  the  period  that  it  belonged  to  Pembroke's  company,  i.e.  in 
1592,  as  he  is  attacked  by  Greene  on  that  score  at  this  time. 
Owing  to  the  prevalence  of  the  plague  in  London  in  1593, 
and  early  in  1594,  the  public  performance  of  plays  was 
prohibited.  The  Earl  of  Pembroke's  company,  which  had 
failed  to  make  its  expenses  travelling,  and  which  was  not 
allowed  to  play  in  London  on  account  of  the  plague,  evidently 
disrupted  in  the  spring  or  summer  of  1594;  and  as  some  of 
its  members  joined  Henslowe  at  this  time  and  some  of  the 
properties  came  to  the  Burbage  organisation,  we  may  infer 
that  they  were  brought  as  properties  by  men  who  came  from 
Pembroke's  company  to  Burbage. 

Edward  Alleyn,  who  toured  the  provinces  in  the  summer 
ol  1593  with  Lord  Strange's  company,  and  for  the  same 
reason  that  Pembroke's  toured  at  this  time,  i.e.  owing  to  the 
plague  in  London,  wrote  to  Henslowe  in  September  1593, 
from  the  country,  inquiring  as  to  the  whereabouts  of 
Pembroke's  company,  and  was  told  by  Henslowe  that  they 
had  returned  to  London  five  or  six  weeks  before,  as  they 
could  not  make  their  charges  travelling.  He  further  informed 
him  that  he  had  heard  that  they  were  compelled  to  pawn 
their  apparel.  The  fact  that  the  fortunes  of  Pembroke's 
company  should  be  a  matter  of  interest  to  Alleyn  and 
Henslowe  appears  to  imply  that  it  was  a  new  theatrical 


86     SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

venture  of  some  importance,  and  that  it  probably  had  in  its 
membership  some  of  the  Admiral's,  Strange's,  or  Queen's 
company's  old  players.  That  a  new  company  should  play 
twice  before  the  Court,  in  what  was  evidently  the  first  or 
second  year  of  its  existence,  speaks  well  for  the  influence  of 
its  management  and  for  the  quality  of  its  plays  and  perform- 
ances. After  this  mention  of  Pembroke's  company  in 
Henslowe's  letter  to  Alleyn  in  September  1593,  we  hear 
nothing  further  concerning  it  as  an  independent  company 
until  1597.  At  that  time  Gabriel  Spencer  and  Humphrey 
Jeffes,  who  were  evidently  Pembroke's  men  in  1592-93, 
became  members  of,  and  sharers  in,  the  Lord  Admiral's 
company,  with  which  they  had  evidently  worked — though 
under  Pembroke's  licence — between  1594  and  1597. 

It  is  now  agreed  by  critics  that  the  Admiral's  and  Chamber- 
lain's men,  who  had  been  united  under  Alleyn  for  the  past 
two  years,  divided  their  forces  and  fortunes  in  June  1594,  or 
earlier.  It  is  evident  that  some  of  Pembroke's  company's 
plays  were  absorbed  by  the  Lord  Chamberlain's  company, 
and  that  a  few  of  the  Pembroke  men  joined  the  Lord 
Admiral's  company  at  this  time.  As  evidence  of  the  absorp- 
tion of  the  plays  of  Pembroke's  men  by  Lord  Strange's 
players  is  the  fact  that  between  3rd  and  I3th  June  1594, 
when  Strange's  players  acted  under  Henslowe  for  the  last 
time,  three  of  the  seven  plays  they  then  presented, — Hamlet, 
Andronicusy  and  The  Taming  of  a  Shrew, — while  all  old 
plays,  were  new  to  the  repertory  of  Strange's  company 
presented  upon  Henslowe's  stages,  and  furthermore  that  all 
three  of  these  plays  were  rewritten — or  alleged  to  have  been 
rewritten — by  Shakespeare.  At  about  the  same  time  that 
Pembroke's  company  ceased  to  exist  the  Earl  of  Sussex's 
company,  which  had  recently  played  for  Henslowe,  was  also 


EARL  OF  PEMBROKE'S  COMPANY  87 

disrupted.  It  is  evident  that  some  of  these  men  joined  the 
Lord  Admiral's  and  the  Lord  Chamberlain's  companies  also, 
and  that  in  this  manner  the  Lord  Chamberlain's  company 
secured  Andronicus,  which  had  lately  been  played  by  the 
Earl  of  Sussex's  men  as  well  as  by  Pembroke's  men. 

Humphrey  Jeffes  and  Gabriel  Spencer,  whose  names  are 
mentioned  in  The  True  Tragedy  of  the  Duke  of  York,  which 
was  played  by  Pembroke's  company  in  1592-93,  and  who, 
we  may  therefore  infer,  were  members  of  Pembroke's  company 
in  those  years,  or  else  were  members  of  the  company  that 
previously  owned  this  play,  are  mentioned  as  playing  with 
the  Lord  Admiral's  company  as  Pembroke's  men  in  1597. 
The  name  of  John  Sinkler,  who  is  mentioned  as  one  of  Lord 
Strange's  men  in  Edward  Alleyn's  list,  which  evidently 
represents  the  company  as  it  appeared  in  the  first  performance 
of  Four  Plays  in  One  at  the  Rose  Theatre  upon  6th  March 
1592,  also  appears  with  that  of  Gabriel  Spencer  and 
Humphrey  Jeffes  in  The  True  Tragedy  of  the  Duke  of  York. 
From  this  we  may  infer  either  that  Sinkler  left  Strange's 
company  and  joined  Pembroke's  men  after  this  date,  or  else 
that  he,  Spencer,  and  Jeffes,  before  1592,  were  members  of  the 
company  that  originally  owned  the  play.  It  is  very  evident 
that  the  originals  of  the  three  parts  of  Henry  VI.  were  old 
plays  composed  at  about  the  time  of  the  Spanish  Armada, 
and,  it  is  generally  agreed,  for  the  Queen's  company.  As 
The  True  Tragedy  of  the  Duke  of  York — in  common  with 
Hamlet  and  The  Taming  of  a  Shrew — was  also  later  revised 
or  rewritten  by  Shakespeare,  into  the  play  now  known  as 
Henry  VI.,  Part  III.,  it  evidently  came  from  Pembroke's 
company  to  Lord  Strange's  company,  along  with  Hamlet  and 
The  Taming  of  a  Shrew  in  1 594.  Later  on  I  shall  adduce 
evidence  showing  that  The  Taming  of  a  Shrew  and  Hamlet 


88     SHAKESPEARE'S  LOST  YEARS 

were  owned  and  acted  by  a  company,  or  companies,  associated 
with  the  Burbage  interests  previous  to  the  amalgamation  of 
1589,  and  that  The  True  Tragedy  of  the  Duke  of  York,  which 
was  an  old  play  in  1592,  probably  originally  written  by 
Greene,  was  revised  in  that  year  by  Marlowe  and  Shakespeare 
for  Pembroke's  company,  and  that  its  final  change  into  the 
play  now  known  as  Henry  VI.,  Part  ///.,  was  made  by 
Shakespeare  in,  or  after,  1594,  when  he  rejoined  the  Lord 
Chamberlain's  company. 

Within  a  year  of  the  time  that  Marlowe,  with  Shake- 
speare, revised  The  True  Tragedy  of  the  Duke  of  York  for 
Pembroke's  men  in  1592,  Marlowe  also  wrote  Edward  II. 
for  this  company,  Shakespeare  producing  Richard  II.  for 
the  company  at  the  same  time.  The  friendly  co-operation 
between  Shakespeare  and  Marlowe,  which  I  shall  show 
commenced  in  1588-89,  and  which  aroused  Greene's  jealousy 
at  that  time,  was  evidently  continued  until  the  death  of 
Marlowe  in  June  1593.  It  is  in  the  historical  plays  com- 
posed or  revised  between  1591-93  by  Shakespeare  that 
Marlowe's  influence  is  most  apparent,  as  also  is  Shake- 
speare's influence  upon  Marlowe  in  his  one  play  which  we 
know  was  produced  at  the  same  period.  Edward  II.  is 
much  more  Shakespearean  in  character  than  any  other  of 
Marlowe's  plays.  It  is  evident  that  their  close  association 
at  this  time  reacted  favourably  upon  the  work  of  each  of 
them. 

The  deductions  I  draw  from  these  and  other  facts  and 
inferences  still  to  be  developed,  is,  that  shortly  after  the 
Lord  Admiral's  and  Lord  Strange's  men  passed  under 
Alleyn's  and  Henslowe's  management,  some  time  between 
Christmas  1590  and  Christmas  1591,  Shakespeare  formed 
Lord  Pembroke's  company,  becoming  its  leader  and  also  its 


EARL  OF  PEMBROKE'S  COMPANY  89 

principal  producer  of  plays,  and  that  it  was  through  his 
influence  and  the  reputation  that  certain  of  his  early  plays 
had  already  attained  in  Court  circles  that  this  new  company 
was  enabled  to  appear  twice  before  the  Court  in  the 
Christmas  season  of  1592.  To  demonstrate  this  hypothesis 
it  will  be  necessary  to  revert  to  a  consideration  of  Shake- 
speare's status  in  theatrical  affairs  between  1588-89  and 
IS94- 


CHAPTER   V 

SHAKESPEARE  AND  THE   SCHOLARS 

1588-1594 

IN  considering  the  conditions  of  Shakespeare's  life  at  the 
beginning  of  his  career  in  London,  -and  his  application 
to  the  College  of  Heralds  for  a  grant  of  arms  in 
1 596,  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  social  distinctions  and 
class  gradations  at  that  time  still  retained  much  of  their 
feudal  significance.  At  that  period  an  actor,  unless  pro- 
tected by  the  licence  of  a  nobleman  or  gentleman,  was 
virtually  a  vagrant  before  the  law,  while  felonies  committed 
by  scholars  were  still  clergyable.  When  Ben  Jonson  was 
indicted  for  killing  Gabriel  Spencer  in  1598,  he  pleaded  and 
received  benefit  of  clergy,  his  only  legal  punishment  consist- 
ing in  having  the  inside  of  his  thumb  branded  with  the 
Tyburn  "  T,"  and  it  is  unlikely  that  even  this  was  inflicted. 

While  a  university  degree  thus  enhanced  both  the  social 
and  legal  status  of  sons  of  yeomen  and  tradesmen,  the  sons 
of  equally  reputable  people  who  became  actors  were  corre- 
spondingly debased  both  socially  and  legally. 

Though  the  established  status  which  the  actors'  profession 
attained  during  Shakespeare's  connection  with  the  stage — 
and  largely  through  his  elevating  influence — made  these 
legal  disabilities  of  an  actor  a  dead  letter,  it  still  continued 
to  militate  against  the  social  standing  of  its  members.  John 

90 


THE   SCHOLARS  91 

Davies  leaves  record  that  at  the  accession  of  James  i.  it  was 
gossiped  that  Shakespeare,  had  he  not  formerly  been  an 
actor,  instead  of  being  appointed  Groom  of  the  Privy 
Chamber,  might  have  received  the  higher  appointment  of 
Gentleman  of  the  Privy  Chamber.  This  idea  owed  its  birth 
to  Shakespeare's  friendship  with  the  Earl  of  Southampton, 
whose  influence  in  the  early  days  of  the  new  Court — when 
he  himself  stood  high  in  favour — secured  the  office  for  his 
other  protege,  John  Florio,  one  of  the  gentlemen  by  the 
grace  of  a  university  degree  who  joined  issue  with  the 
"  university  pens "  against  Shakespeare,  and  who  in  conse- 
quence— as  I  shall  later  demonstrate — shall  be  pilloried  to 
far-distant  ages  in  the  character  of  Sir  John  Falstaff. 
Though  Shakespeare  had  acquired  a  legal  badge  of  gentility 
with  his  coat  of  arms  in  1599,  the  histrionic  taint — accord- 
ing to  Davies — proved  a  bar  to  his  official  promotion. 

"  Some  say,  good  Will,  which  I  in  sport  do  sing, 
Hadst  thou  not  played  some  kingly  parts  in  sport, 
Thou  hadst  been  a  companion  to  a  King 
And  been  a  King  among  the  meaner  sort." 

Arrogance  towards  social  inferiors,  as  well  as  servility  to 
superiors,  is  always  manifested  most  offensively  in  the 
manners  of  those  who  are  themselves  conscious  of  equivocal 
social  standing.  I  shall  adduce  evidence  to  prove  that  from 
the  time  we  first  begin  dimly  to  apprehend  Shakespeare  in 
his  London  environment,  in  1588-89,  until  his  final  return  to 
Stratford  in  about  1610,  he  was  continuously  and  spitefully 
attacked  and  vilified  by  a  coterie  of  jealous  scholars  who, 
while  lifted  above  him  socially  by  the  arbitrary  value  attach- 
ing to  a  university  degree,  were  in  no  other  sense  his 
superiors  either  in  birth  or  breeding.  It  was  evidently,  then, 
the  contemptuous  attitude  of  his  jealous  scholastic  rivals,  as 


92     SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST  YEARS 

well  as  the  accruing  material  advantages  involved,  that 
impelled  Shakespeare  in  159610  apply,  through  his  father, 
to  the  College  of  Heralds  for  official  confirmation  of  a  grant 
of  arms  alleged  to  have  been  made  to  his  forebears. 

Shakespeare's  earliest  scholastic  detractor  was  Robert 
Greene,  who  evidently  set  much  store  by  his  acquired 
gentility,  as  he  usually  signed  his  publications  as  "By 
Robert  Greene,  Master  of  Arts  in  Cambridge,"  and  who, 
withal,  was  a  most  licentious  and  unprincipled  libertine, 
going,  through  his  ill-regulated  course  of  life,  dishonoured 
and  unwept  to  a  pauper's  grave  at  the  age  of  thirty-two. 
After  the  death  of  Greene,  when  his  memory  was  assailed 
by  Gabriel  Harvey  and  others  whom  he  had  offended,  his 
friend  Nashe,  who  attempted  to  defend  him,  finding  it 
difficult  to  do  so,  makes  up  for  the  lameness  of  his  defence 
by  the  bitterness  of  his  attack  on  Harvey.  Nashe,  in  fact, 
resents  being  regarded  as  an  intimate  of  Greene's,  yet  his, 
and  Greene's,  spiteful  and  ill-bred  reflections  upon  Shake- 
speare's social  quality,  education,  and  personal  appearance, 
between  1589  and  1592,  were  received  sympathetically  by 
the  remainder  of  the  "gentlemen  poets," — as  they  styled 
themselves  in  contradistinction  to  the  stage  poets, — and  used 
thereafter  for  years  as  a  keynote  to  their  own  jealous  abuse 
of  him. 

John  Florio,  in  his  First  Fruites,  published  in  1591,  and 
after  he  had  entered  the  service  of  the  Earl  of  Southampton, 
though  not  yet  assailing  Shakespeare  personally,  as  did 
these  other  scholars,  appears  as  a  critic  of  his  historical 
dramatic  work. 

In  1593  George  Peele,  in  his  Honour  of  the  Garter, 
re-echoes  the  slurs  against  Shakespeare  voiced  by  Greene 
in  the  previous  year.  In  the  same  year  George  Chapman, 


THE   SCHOLARS  93 

who  thereafterwards  proved  to  be  Shakespeare's  arch-enemy 
among  the  "gentlemen  scholars,"  caricatures  him  and  his 
affairs  in  a  new  play,  which  he  revised,  in  conjunction  with 
John  Marston,  six  years  later,  under  the  title  of  Histrio mastix, 
or  The  Player  Whipt.  Neither  the  authorship,  date  of  pro- 
duction, nor  satirical  intention  of  the  early  form  of  the  play 
has  previously  been  known. 

In  1594  Chapman  again  attacks  Shakespeare  in  The 
Hymns  to  the  Shadow  of  Night,  as  well  as  in  the  prose 
dedication  written  to  his  colleague,  Matthew  Roydon.  In 
the  same  year  Roydon  enters  the  lists  against  Shakespeare 
by  publishing  a  satirical  and  scandalous  poem  reflecting 
upon,  and  distorting,  his  private  affairs,  entitled  Willobie  his 
Avisa.  From  this  time  onward  until  the  year  1609-10, 
Chapman,  Roydon,  and  John  Florio — who  in  the  meantime 
had  joined  issue  with  them — continue  to  attack  and  vilify 
Shakespeare.  Every  reissue,  or  attempted  reissue,  of 
Willobie  his  Avisa  was  intended  as  an  attack  upon  Shake- 
speare. Such  reissues  were  made  or  attempted  in  1596- 
1599-1605  and  1609,  though  some  of  them  were  prevented 
by  the  action  of  the  public  censor  who,  we  have  record, 
condemned  the  issue  of  1596  and  prevented  the  issue  of 
1599.  As  no  copies  of  the  1605  or  1609  issues  are  now 
extant,  it  is  probable  that  they  also  were  estopped  by  the 
authorities.  In  1 598-99  these  partisans  (Chapman,  Roydon, 
and  Florio)  are  joined  by  John  Marston,  and  a  year  later, 
also  by  Ben  Jonson,  when,  for  three  or  four  years,  Chapman, 
Jonson,  and  Marston  collaborate  in  scurrilous  plays  against 
Shakespeare  and  friends  who  had  now  rallied  to  his  side. 
In  about  1598  Thomas  Dekker  and  Henry  Chettle  joined 
sides  with  Shakespeare  and  answered  his  opponents'  attacks 
by  satirising  them  in  plays.  John  Florio,  while  not  partici- 


94     SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST  YEARS 

pating  in  the  dramatic  warfare,  attacks  Shakespeare  viciously 
in  the  dedication  to  his  Worlde  of  Wordes,  in  1598,  and 
comes  in  for  his  share  of  the  satirical  chastisement  which 
Shakespeare,  Dekker,  and  Chettle  administer  to  them  in 
acted,  as  well  as  in  published,  plays. 

As  Ben  Jonson's  dramatic  reputation  became  assured 
the  heat  of  his  rivalry  against  Shakespeare  died  down; 
his  vision  cleared  and  broadened  and  he,  more  plainly  than 
any  writer  of  his  time,  or  possibly  since  his  time,  realised 
Shakespeare  in  his  true  proportions.  Jonson,  in  time,  tires 
of  Chapman's  everlasting  envy  and  misanthropy,  and 
quarrels  with  him  and  in  turn  becomes  the  object  of 
Chapman's  invectives.  After  Shakespeare's  death  Jonson 
made  amends  for  his  past  ill-usage  by  defending  his  memory 
against  Chapman,  who,  even  then,  continued  to  belittle  his 
reputation. 

While  various  critics  have  from  time  to  time  appre- 
hended a  critical  attitude  upon  the  part  of  certain  con- 
temporary writers  towards  Shakespeare,  they  have  usually 
regarded  such  indications  as  they  may  have  noticed,  merely 
as  passing  and  temporary  ebullitions,  but  no  conception  of 
the  bitterness  and  continuity  of  the  hostility  which  actually 
existed  has  previously  been  realised.  Much  of  the  evidence 
of  the  early  antagonism  of  Greene  and  Nashe  to  Shakespeare 
has  been  entirely  misunderstood,  while  their  reflections 
against  other  dramatists  and  actors  are  supposed  to  have 
been  directed  against  him.  Past  critics  have  been  utterly 
oblivious  of  the  fact  that  Florio,  Roydon,  and  Chapman 
and  others  colluded  for  many  years  in  active  hostility  to 
Shakespeare. 

In  publications  issued  between  1585  and  1592  Robert 
Greene  vents  his  displeasure  against  various  dramatic 


THE   SCHOLARS  95 

writers  whose  plays  had  proved  more  popular  than  his,  as 
well  as  against  the  companies  of  actors,  their  managers,  and 
the  theatre  that  favoured  his  rivals.  The  writers  and 
actor-managers  whom  he  attacks  have  been  variously 
identified  by  past  writers.  Mr.  Richard  Simpson,  one  of 
the  most  acute,  ingenious,  and  painstaking  pioneers  in 
Shakespearean  research,  whose  School  of  Shakespeare  was 
issued  after  his  death  in  1878,  supposed  that  all  of  Greene's 
attacks  in  these  years,  including  those  in  which  his  friend, 
Thomas  Nashe,  collaborated  with  him,  were  directed 
against  Shakespeare  and  Marlowe.  Since  Mr.  Simpson 
wrote,  however,  now  over  forty  years  ago,  some  new  light  has 
been  thrown  upon  the  theatrical  companies,  and  their  con- 
nection with  the  writers  of  the  period  with  which  he  dealt, 
which  negatives  many  of  his  conclusions.  While  it  is 
evident  that  Greene  was  jealous  of,  and  casts  reflections 
upon,  Marlowe,  to  whom  he  refers  as  "  Merlin  "  and  "  the 
athiest  Tamburlaine,"  Mr.  Fleay  has  since  proved  that 
several  of  Greene's  veiled  reflections  were  directed  against 
others.  Mr.  Fleay's  suggestion  that  Robert  Wilson  was  the 
Roscius  so  frequently  referred  to  by  Greene  and  Nashe  is, 
however,  based  upon  incorrect  inference,  though  he  proves 
by  several  characteristic  parallels,  which  he  adduces  between 
lines  in  The  Three  Ladies  of  London^  The  Three  Lords  and 
Three  Ladies^  and  Fair  Em, — the  last  of  which  is  satirically 
alluded  to  by  Greene  in  his  Farewell  to  Folly  y  in  1591, — that 
they  were  all  three  either  written,  or  revised,  by  the  same 
hand.  While  his  ascription  of  the  composition  of  the  first 
two  of  these  plays  to  Wilson  is  probably  also  correct,  his 
assumption  that  Wilson  was  a  writer  and  an  actor  for  Lord 
Strange's  company  in  1591  was  due  to  lack  of  collected  and 
compiled  records  concerning  the  Elizabethan  companies  of 


96     SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

players  at  the  time  he  wrote,  which  have  since  been  made 
available.1 

There  is  nothing  whatever  known  of  Robert  Wilson 
after  1583,  when  he  is  mentioned,  along  with  Tarleton,  as 
being  selected  by  Tilney,  the  Master  of  the  Revels,  for  the 
Queen's  company.  In  an  appended  note  I  analyse  the 
literary  evidence  upon  which  Mr.  Fleay  associates  Robert 
Wilson  with  Strange's  company  in 


1  English  Dramatic  Companies  ;  1558-1641,  by  John  Tucker  Murray. 

a  In  1594  Cuthbert  Burbie  published  a  play  entitled  The  Cobbler's  Prophecy  ', 
the  authorship  of  which  is  ascribed  to  "  R.  Wilson  "  on  the  title-page.  The 
textual  resemblances  between  this  play,  The  Pedlar's  Prophecy,  The  Three 
Ladies  of  London,  and  The  Three  Lords  and  Three  Ladies,  and  certain  parallels 
between  the  two  latter  and  Fair  Em,  all  of  which  plays  were  published 
anonymously,  led  Mr.  Fleay  to  credit  all  of  them  to  Wilson,  in  which  —  ex- 
cluding Fair  Em  —  he  was  probably  correct.  All  of  these  plays,  with  the 
exception  of  The  Pedlar's  Prophecy,  were  either  Burbage's  or  Admiral's  pro- 
perties. The  Three  Lords  and  Three  Ladies  was  published  for  Richard  Jones 
in  1590,  and  The  Cobbler's  Prophecy  for  Cuthbert  Burbie  in  1594.  All  plays 
published  for  Richard  Jones  were  formerly  old  Admiral's  properties,  and  nearly 
all  the  early  plays  published  for  Cuthbert  Burbie  old  Burbage  properties. 
Fair  Em,  while  not  published  until  1631,  records  on  the  title-page  that  it  was 
acted  by  Lord  Strange's  company.  The  Pedlar  s  Prophecy  was,  however,  pub- 
lished by  Thomas  Creede,  all  of  whose  publications  Mr.  Fleay  has  found  were 
old  Queen's  properties.  Admitting,  then,  that  all  of  these  plays  were  written 
by  Robert  Wilson,  the  latter  play  must  have  been  written  by  him  for 
the  Queen's  company  later  than  1582-83,  when  he  left  Leicester's 
company.  It  appears  probable  also  that  the  earlier  plays  —  The  Three  Ladies 
and  The  Cobbler's  Prophecy  —  were  written  for  Leicester's  company  before  that 
date,  and  retained  by  Burbage  when  he  severed  his  connection  with  Leicester's 
men,  or  else,  that  they  were  retained  by  Leicester's  men  as  company  properties 
and  brought  to  Strange's  men  in  1588-89  by  Kempe,  Pope,  and  Bryan,  when 
their  old  company  disbanded.  It  is  evident,  then,  The  Three  Lords  and  Three 
Ladies,  which  Mr.  Fleay  admits  is  merely  an  amplification  of  the  old  play  of 
The  Three  Ladies,  which  he  dates  as  being  first  published  in  1584,  was  a  re- 
vision made  when  all  these  plays  became  Strange's  properties,  and  that  the 
scriptural  parallels  between  The  Three  Lords  and  Three  Ladies,  The  Three 
Ladies,  and  Fair  Em,  which  are  quite  absent  in  The  Pedlar's  Prophecy  —  the 
only  one  of  these  plays  ascribed  in  the  publication  itself  to  Wilson  —  are  due  to 
the  revisionary  efforts  of  the  "  theological  poet  "  referred  to  by  Greene  as  doing 
such  work  for  Strange's  company,  and  as  having  had  a  hand  in  Fair  Em,  which 
was  acted  in  about  1590,  in  which  year  The  Three  Lords  and  Three  Ladies, 


THE   SCHOLARS  97 

Robert  Wilson  must  have  been  passe*  as  an  actor  in  1589, 
if  indeed  he  was  then  living,  while  Strange's  company  was 
composed  of  younger  and  rising  men,  all  recently  selected 
for  their  histrionic  abilities  from  several  companies,  amongst 

which  shows  similar  scriptural  characteristics,  was  published.  From  a  time 
reference  in  the  earlier  form  of  this  play — The  Three  Ladies — in  the  first  scene, 
"not  much  more  than  twenty-six  years,  it  was  in  Queen  Mary's  time,"  Mr. 
Fleay  arbitrarily  dates  from  the  last  year  of  Mary's  reign,  and  concludes  that  it 
may  have  been  acted  by  the  Queen's  company  in  1 584.  He  admits,  however, 
that  it  does  not  appear  in  the  list  of  the  Queen's  men's  plays  for  this  year,  and 
later  on  infers  from  other  evidence  that  the  allusion  to  twenty-six  years  from 
Queen  Mary's  time  probably  referred  to  the  first  date  of  publication,  which  is 
unknown,  but  which  he  places,  tentatively,  in  1584.  "That  it  was  played 
by  the  Queen's  men,"  he  writes,  "is  shown  under  the  next  play, — The  Three 
Lords  and  Three  Ladies, — which  is  an  amplification  of  the  preceding  play  per- 
formed shortly  after  Tarleton's  death  in  about  1588.  Mr.  Fleay  writes  further  : 
"  If  I  rightly  understand  the  allusions,  Tarleton  acted  in  Wit  and  Will  in 
1567-68.  The  allusion  to  Tarleton's  picture  shows  that  Tarleton's  Jests,  in 
which  his  picture  appears,  had  already  been  published.  The  statement  that 
Simplicity  (probably  acted  by  Wilson  himself),  Wit,  and  Will  had  acted  with 
Tarleton,  proves  that  the  present  play  was  acted  by  the  Queen's  men." 

In  arguing  to  place  Robert  Wilson  as  a  member  of  Strange's  company  in 
1588-89,  Mr.  Fleay  borrows  both  premises  and  inference  from  the  facts  to 
support  his  theory.  He  is  no  doubt  right  in  dating  the  original  composition  of 
The  Three  Ladies  of  London  before  1584,  and  probably  also  in  attributing  all  of 
these  plays  to  Wilson,  but,  seeing  that  they  were  all  Burbage  properties  in 
1589-90,  is  it  not  evident  that  The  Three  Ladies  of  London  was  an  old  Leicester 
play  produced  by  Wilson  before  1582-83,  when  he  and  Burbage  left  that  company, 
and  either  that  Burbage  then  retained  possession  of  it,  or,  that  it  was  brought 
to  Strange's  men  by  Pope,  Kempe,  and  Bryan  in  1589  ?  Mr.  Fleay  admits  that 
The  Three  Lords  and  Three  Ladies  is  merely  an  amplification  of  The  Three 
Ladies  made  after  Tarleton's  death,  which  occurred  in  1588.  It  seems  apparent, 
then,  that  the  scriptural  phraseology  noticeable  in  The  Three  Ladies,  The  Three 
Lords  and  Three  Ladies,  and  Fair  Em,  which  led  Mr.  Fleay  to  impute  the  last 
to  Wilson's  pen,  and  also  to  connect  him  as  a  writer  and  an  actor  with  Lord 
Strange's  company  in  1589-90,  is  the  work  of  the  "  theological  poet"  indicated 
by  Greene  and  Nashe  as  having  had  a  hand  in  Fair  Em  in  1589.  It  is  also 
evident  that  the  actors  who  took  the  parts  of  Simplicity,  Wit,  and  Will, — in  The 
Three  Lords  and  Three  Ladies, — who  had  formerly  acted  with  Tarleton,  were 
Kempe,  Pope,  and  Bryan,  Strange's  men,  who  were  all  formerly  Leicester's  men. 
It  is  much  more  likely  that  these  old  members  of  Leicester's  company,  who  in 
Tarleton's  time  would  have  been  juniors  in  the  company,  would  recall  and  boast 
of  their  old  connection,  than  that  his  late  associates  in  the  Queen's  company 
would  do  so  within  a  year  or  two  of  his  death. 

7 


98     SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST  YEARS 

which,  it  appears  evident,  the  Queen's  company  was  not 
then  included,  though  it  is  likely  that  in  1591  some  Queen's 
men  joined  Strange's  company.  That  Robert  Wilson  was 
not  the  Roscius  referred  to  by  Greene  and  Nashe  in  1589 
and  1590  a  further  examination  of  the  evidence  will  fully 
verify. 

The  person  indicated  as  Roscius  by  Nashe  in  his  Address 
to  Greene's  Menaphon  in  1589,  and  in  Greene's  Never  Too 
Late  in  1590,  was  the  leading  actor  of  a  new  company  that 
was  then  gaining  great  reputation,  which,  however,  was 
largely  due — according  to  Nashe — to  the  pre-eminent  excel- 
lence of  this  Roscius'  acting.  The  pride  and  conceit  of 
this  actor  had  risen  to  such  a  pitch,  Nashe  informs  us  in  his 
Anatomy  of  Absurdity  (1589),  that  he  had  the  "temerity  to 
encounter  with  those  on  whose  shoulders  all  arts  do  lean." 
This  last  is  a  plain  reference  to  George  Peele,  whom  he  had 
recently  described  in  his  Menaphon  "  Address "  as  "  The 
Atlas  of  Poetry."  In  the  following  year  Greene  refers  to 
the  same  encounter  in  the  first  part  of  his  Never  Too  Late. 
Pretending  to  describe  theatrical  conditions  in  Rome,  he 
again  attacks  the  London  players  and  brings  in  Roscius — 
who  without  doubt  was  Edward  Alleyn — as  contending  with 
Tully,  who  is  Peele.  "Among  whom,"  he  writes,  "in  the 
days  of  Tully,  one  Roscius  grew  to  be  of  such  exquisite 
perfection  in  his  faculty  that  he  offered  to  contend  with  the 
orators  of  that  time  in  gesture  as  they  did  in  eloquence^  boasting 
that  he  would  express  a  passion  in  as  many  sundry  actions 
as  Tully  could  discourse  it  in  a  variety  of  phrases.  Yet  so 
proud  he  grew  by  the  daily  applause  of  the  people  that  he 
looked  for  honour  or  reverence  to  be  done  him  in  the  streets, 
which  conceit  when  Tully  entered  into  with  a  piercing  in- 
sight, he  quipped  it  in  this  manner : 


THE    SCHOLARS  99 

"It  chanced  that  Roscius  and  he  met  at  dinner  both 
guests  unto  Archias,  the  poet,  when  the  proud  comedian 
dared  to  make  comparison  with  Tully.  Why  Roscius  art 
thou  proud  with  ^Esop's  crow,  being  prankt  with  the  glory 
of  others'  feathers  ?  Of  thyself  thou  canst  say  nothing  and 
if  the  cobbler  hath  taught  thee  to  say  Ave  Ccesar  disdain  not 
thy  tutor  because  thou  pratest  in  a  King's  chamber.  What 
sentence  thou  utterest  on  the  stage  flows  from  the  censure 
of  our  wits,  and  what  sentence  or  conceit  the  people  applaud 
for  excellence,  that  comes  from  the  secrets  of  our  knowledge. 
I  grant  your  acting,  though  it  be  a  kind  of  mechanical 
labour,  yet  well  done,  'tis  worthy  of  praise,  but  you  worthless 
if  for  so  small  a  toy  you  wax  proud." 

Here  again  Tully  is  Peele,  and  Greene  is  merely  describ- 
ing more  fully  the  alleged  encounter  between  Alleyn  and 
Peele,  mentioned  by  Nashe  the  year  before  in  The  Anatomy 
of  Absurdity. 

Though  it  has  never  been  noticed  before,  in  this 
connection,  we  possess  in  Edward  Alleyn's  own  papers 
preserved  at  Dulwich  College  a  remarkable  confirmation  of 
this  emulation,  which,  however,  Greene  and  Nashe  distort 
to  the  prejudice  of  Alleyn,  who,  as  shall  be  shown,  was 
innocent  in  the  affair.  The  whole  thing  arose  from  admirers 
of  Alleyn's  among  the  theatre-frequenting  gentry  offering 
wagers  to  friends  who  championed  Peele  in  order  to  provide 
after-dinner  entertainment  for  themselves,  by  putting  the 
poet  and  the  player  on  their  mettle  in  "expressing  a 
passion " — the  one  in  action  and  the  other  in  phrases. 
Alleyn  refused  the  contest  "  for  fear  of  hurting  Peele's 
credit,"  but  gossip  of  the  proposed  wager  got  abroad  and 
was  distorted  by  the  scholars,  who  affected  to  be  insulted  by 
the  idea  of  one  of  their  ilk  contending  with  a  player.  Fail- 


100    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

ing  to  bring  about  this  match,  Alleyn's  backers,  not  to  be 
beaten,  and  in  order,  willy-nilly,  to  make  a  wager  on  their 
champion,  evidently  tried  to  get  Alleyn  to  display  his 
powers  before  friends  who  professed  to  admire  Bentley  and 
Knell1 — actors  of  a  slightly  earlier  date,  who  were  now 
either  retired  from  the  stage  or  dead.  The  following  letter 
and  poem  were  evidently  written  in  1589,  as  Nashe's 
reference  to  the  "  encounter,"  which  is  the  first  notice  of  it, 
was  published  in  this  year  : 

"Your  answer  the  other  nighte,  so  well  pleased  the 
Gentlemen,  as  I  was  satisfied  therewith,  though  to  the 
hazarde  of  ye  wager ;  and  yet  my  meaninge  was  not  to 
prejudice  Peele's  credit ;  neither  wolde  it,  though  it  pleased 
you  so  to  excuse  it,  but  beinge  now  growen  farther  into 
question,  the  partie  affected  to  Bentley  (scornynge  to  wynne 
the  wager  by  your  deniall),  hath  now  given  you  libertie  to 
make  choice  of  any  one  playe,  that  either  Bentley  or  Knell 
plaide,  and  least  this  advantage,  agree  not  with  your  minde, 
he  is  contented,  both  the  plaie,  and  the  time,  shall  be 
referred  to  the  gentlemen  here  present  I  see  not,  how  you 
canne  any  waie  hurte  your  credit  by  this  action  ;  for  if  you 
excell  them,  you  will  then  be  famous,  if  equall  them ;  you 
wynne  both  the  wager  and  credit,  if  short  of  them  ;  we  must 
and  will  saie  Ned  Allen  still. — Your  frend  to  his  power, 

W.  P. 

Deny  me  not  sweete  Nedd,  the  wager's  downe, 

and  twice  as  muche,  commande  of  me  and  myne  : 
And  if  you  wynne  I  sweare  the  half  is  thyne ; 
and  for  an  overplus,  an  English  Crowne. 
Appoint  the  tyme,  and  stint  it  as  you  pleas, 
Your  labor's  gaine ;  and  that  will  prove  it  ease." 

(addressed)  "  To  Edward  Allen." 

1  Bentley  was  a  Queen's  player  in  1584,  and  probably  came  from  Sussex's 
company  to  the  Queen's  upon  the  organisation  of  that  company  in  1583. 


THE   SCHOLARS  i*oi; 

This  letter  to  Edward  Alleyn  from  his  friend  "  W.  P."  is 
finely  written  in  an  English,  and  the  verses  in  an  Italian,  hand. 
The  words,  "  Ned  Allen,"  "  sweete  Nedd,"  and  "  English 
Crowne  "  are  in  gilt  letters.1  The  occasion  and  its  instiga- 
tion must  have  been  of  interest  to  Alleyn  for  him  to  have 
preserved  the  letter  for  so  many  years ;  his  reason  for  doing 
so  evidently  being  to  enable  him  to  refute  Greene's  published 
and  widely  circulated  misconstruction  of  it.  It  is  evident 
that  both  the  letter  and  poem  were  written  while  Alleyn 
was  still  young,  when  he  already  had  ardent  admirers,  and 
his  reputation  was  growing  but  not  generally  admitted,  and 
at  about  the  time  that  Peele  had  commenced  to  write  for 
his  company.  Alleyn  was  twenty-four'  years  old  in  1589, 
and  already  regarded  by  many  as  the  best  actor  in  London. 
George  Peele,  who  had  written  for  the  Queen's  company  in 
the  past,  at  about,  or  shortly  after,  this  date,  began  to  write 
for  Strange's  company.  His  Edward  /.,  which  was  published 
in  1593,  was  undoubtedly  written  between  1589-91,  when 
Shakespeare  was  still  connected  with  Strange's  men. 

The  "  cobbler  "  who  taught  Roscius  to  say  "  Ave  Caesar  " 
was  Christopher  Marlowe,  whose  father  was  a  shoemaker. 
Marlowe  was  the  principal  writer  for  Burba  re  at  this  period, 
and  continued  so  until  his  death  in  1593.  "  Ave  Caesar  "  and 
"  a  King's  chamber  "  are  references  to  the  play  of  Edward 
///.,  which  I  shall  demonstrate  later  was  written  by  Marlowe, 
though  revised  by  Shakespeare  after  Marlowe's  death.  It 
is  the  only  known  play  of  this  period  in  which  the  expression 
"  Ave  Caesar  "  occurs. 

In  many  of  Greene's  romances  the  central  figure  has 
been  recognised  as  a  more  or  less  fanciful  autobiographical 

1  This  letter  and  the  verses  are  printed  in  Henslowe's  Papers^  p.  32,  W.  W. 
Greg,  1907,  and  in  the  works  of  several  earlier  editors. 


102    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST  YEARS 

sketch.  In  his  last  work,  A  Groatsworth  of  Wit,  in  the 
introduction  to  which  he  makes  his  well-known  attack  upon 
Shakespeare,  the  adventures  of  Roberto,  the  protagonist  of 
the  story,  tally  approximately  with  known  circumstances 
of  Greene's  life.  In  the  opening  of  the  story,  Roberto's 
marriage,  his  desertion  of  his  wife,  his  attachment  to  another 
woman  who  deserts  him  when  he  falls  into  poverty,  all 
coincide  with  the  facts  in  his  own  career.  From  this  we 
may  infer  that  what  follows  has  also  a  substratum  of  truth 
regarding  a  temporary  connection  of  Greene  with  Alleyn's 
company  as  playwright,  though  it  is  evident  that  he  describes 
Alleyn's  theatrical  conditions  as  they  were  between  1589 
and  1592  and  after  Alleyn  had  acquired  the  theatrical 
properties  of  the  old  Admiral's  company  from  Richard 
Jones,  Robert  Browne,  and  his  brother,  John  Alleyn,  in  1589. 
Greene's  account  of  Roscius'  own  attempts  at  dramatic 
composition  need  not  be  taken  very  seriously,  though  it  is 
not  at  all  improbable  that  Alleyn,  who  was  very  ambitious, 
at  some  time  tentatively  essayed  dramatic  composition  or 
revision.  It  was  certainly  a  very  inexperienced  playwright, 
yet  one  who  had  some  idea  of  the  style  of  phrase  that  caught 
the  ear  of  the  masses,  who  interpolated  the  tame  and  prosy 
lines  of  the  old  Taming  of  a  Shrew  so  freely  with  selections 
from  Marlowe's  most  inflated  grandiloquence,  and  one,  also, 
who  had  access  to  Marlowe's  manuscripts.  The  plays  from 
which  these  selections  were  taken  were  all  Burbage  pro- 
perties in  1588-89,  as  was  also  The  Taming  of  a  Shrew.  It 
was  this  kind  of  dramatic  stage-carpenter  work  that  left  an 
opening  for  Nashe's  strictures  in  1589  in  his  Menaphon 
"  Address."  Several  of  the  later  covert  references  to  Alleyn 
as  Roscius,  by  Greene  and  Nashe,  indicate  that  he  had  tried 
his  hand  upon  the  composition  and  revision  of  dramatic 


THE  SCHOLARS  103 

work,  in  which  he  had  the  assistance  of  a  "  theological  poet." 
While  they  undoubtedly  refer  to  Shakespeare  as  one  of  the 
"  idiot  art-masters  "  they  use  the  plural  and  include  others  in 
authority  in  Burbage's  company. 

Greene,  representing  himself  as  Roberto  after  his  mistress 
had  deserted  him,  describes  himself  as  sitting  under  a  hedge 
as  an  outcast  and  bemoaning  his  fate. 

"  On  the  other  side  of  the  hedge  sat  one  that  heard  his 
sorrow,  who,  getting  over,  came  .  .  .  and  saluted  Roberto  .  .  . 
*  If  you  vouchsafe  such  simple  comfort  as  my  ability  will  yield, 
assure  yourself  that  I  will  endeavour  to  do  the  best  that  .  .  . 
may  procure  your  profit  .  .  .  the  rather,  for  that  I  suppose  you 
are  a  scholar ;  and  pity  it  is  men  of  learning  should  live  in  lack.' 
Roberto  .  .  .  uttered  his  present  grief,  beseeching  his  advice 
how  he  might  be  employed.  *  Why,  easily,'  quoth  he, '  and 
greatly  to  your  benefit ;  for  men  of  my  profession  get  by 
scholars  their  whole  living.'  '  What  is  your  profession  ? ' 
said  Roberto.  *  Truly,  sir,'  said  he,  '  I  am  a  player.'  '  A 
player ! '  quoth  Roberto ;  '  I  took  you  rather  for  a  gentle- 
man of  great  living ;  for  if  by  outward  habit  men  should  be 
censured,  I  tell  you  you  would  be  taken  for  a  substantial 
man.'  '  So  am  I,  where  I  dwell,'  quoth  the  player,  *  reputed 
able  at  my  proper  cost  to  build  a  windmill.  What  though 
the  world  once  went  hard  with  me,  when  I  was  fain  to  carry 
my  fardel  a  foot-back  ?  Tempora  mutantur — I  know  you 
know  the  meaning  of  it  better  than  I,  but  I  thus  construe 
it — It  is  otherwise  now ;  for  my  very  share  in  playing 
apparel  will  not  be  sold  for  two  hundred  pounds.'  '  Truly/ 
said  Roberto, '  it  is  strange  that  you  should  so  prosper  in 
that  vain  practice,  for  that  it  seems  to  me  your  voice  is 
nothing  gracious.'  *  Nay,  then/  said  the  player, '  I  mislike 
your  judgement ;  why,  I  am  as  famous  for  Delphrygus  and 
The  King  of  Fairies  as  ever  was  any  of  my  time ;  The 
Twelve  Labours  of  Hercules  have  I  thundered  on  the  stage, 


104    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

and  played  three  scenes  of  the  Devil  in  The  Highway  to 
Heaven'  '  Have  ye  so ? '  said  Roberto ;  '  then  I  pray  you 
pardon  me.'  '  Nay,  more/  quoth  the  player,  '  I  can  serve  to 
make  a  pretty  speech,  for  I  was  a  country  author,  passing 
at  a  moral ;  for  it  was  I  that  penned  The  Moral  of  Marts 
Wit,  The  Dialogue  of  Dives>  and  for  seven  years'  space  was 
absolute  interpreter  of  the  puppets.  But  now  my  almanac 
is  out  of  date : 

'  "  The  people  make  no  estimation 
Of  morals,  teaching  education " 

Was  this  not  pretty  for  a  rhyme  extempore  ?  If  ye  will  ye 
shall  have  more.'  '  Nay,  it  is  enough,'  said  Roberto ;  '  but 
how  mean  ye  to  use  me  ? '  '  Why,  sir,  in  making  plays,' 
said  the  other,  *  for  which  you  shall  be  well  paid,  if  you  will 
take  the  pains.'  Roberto,  perceiving  no  remedy,  thought  it 
best  to  respect  his  present  necessity,  (and,)  to  try  his  wit, 
went  with  him  willingly;  who  lodged  him  at  the  town's 
end  in  a  house  of  retail  .  .  .  there  by  conversing  with  bad 
company,  he  grew  a  malo  in  pegus,  falling  from  one  vice 
to  another.  .  .  .  But  Roberto,  now  famoused  for  an  arch- 
playmaking  poet,  his  purse,  like  the  sea,  sometime  swelled, 
anon,  like  the  same  sea,  fell  to  a  low  ebb ;  yet  seldom  he 
wanted,  his  labours  were  so  well  esteemed.  Marry  this  rule 
he  kept,  whatever  he  fingered  beforehand,  was  the  certain 
means  to  unbind  a  bargain ;  and  being  asked  why  he  so 
slightly  dealt  with  them  that  did  him  good,  '  It  becomes 
me,'  saith  he,  '  to  be  contrary  to  the  world.  For  commonly 
when  vulgar  men  receive  earnest,  they  do  perform.  When 
I  am  paid  anything  aforehand,  I  break  my  promise.' " 

The  player  described  here  is  the  same  person  indicated 
by  Nashe  three  years  before  in  his  Menaphon  "  Address." 
Both  are  represented  as  being  famous  for  their  performance 
of  Delphrygus  and  The  King  of  the  Fairies,  but  the  events 
narrated  connecting  Greene  with  Alleyn,  and  the  opulent 


THE   SCHOLARS  105 

condition  of  the  latter,  refer  to  a  more  recent  stage  of 
Greene's  and  Alleyn's  affairs  than  Nashe's  reference.  Both 
Nashe's  and  Greene's  descriptions  point  to  a  company  of 
players  that  between  1589-91  had  won  a  leading  place 
in  London  theatrical  affairs ;  that  performed  at  the  Theatre ; 
that  played  Hamlet,  The  Taming  of  a  Shrew,  Edward 
///.,  and  Fair  Em :  the  leader  of  which  personally  owned 
theatrical  properties  valued  at  two  hundred  pounds,  and  who 
was  regarded  by  them  as  an  actor  of  unusual  ability. 
Seven  years  before  1592  this  company  performed  mostly  in 
the  provinces,  carrying  their  "  fardels  on  their  backs."  It  is 
very  apparent  then  that  it  is  Alleyn's  old  and  new  com- 
panies, the  Worcester  -  Admiral  -  Strange  development,  to 
which  the  allusions  refer. 

While  the  "idiot  art-masters"  indicated  by  Nashe  and 
Greene  as  those  who  chose,  purchased,  and  reconstructed 
the  plays  used  by  Strange's  company,  included  others  beside 
Shakespeare  in  their  satirical  intention,  this  phase  of  their 
attacks  upon  the  Theatre  and  its  leading  figures  became 
centred  upon  Shakespeare  as  his  importance  in  the  conduct 
of  its  business  increased,  and  his  dramatic  ability  developed. 

It  is  now  generally  agreed  by  critics  that  Shakespeare 
cannot  have  left  Stratford  for  London  before  1585,  and 
probably  not  before  1586-87,  and  the  likelihood  has  been 
shown  that  he  then  entered  the  service  of  James  Burbage 
as  a  hired  servant,  or  servitor,  for  a  term  of  years.  When 
Henslowe,  in  1598,  bound  Richard  Alleyn  as  a  hired 
servant,  he  did  so  for  a  period  of  two  years,  which,  we 
may  judge,  was  then  the  customary  term  of  such  service. 
Assuming  that  Shakespeare  bound  himself  to  Burbage  in 
1586-87,  his  term  of  service  would  have  expired  in  1588-89. 
Though  we  possess  no  evidence  that  Shakespeare  had  pro- 


106    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST  YEARS 

duced  any  original  plays  at  this  time,  the  strictures  of  Nashe 
and  Greene  make  it  apparent  that  he  had  by  then  attained 
to  the  position  of  what  might  be  called  dramatic  critic  for 
the  Burbage  interests.  In  this  capacity  he  helped  to  choose 
the  plays  purchased  by  his  employers  for  the  use  of  the 
companies  in  which  they  were  interested. 

Greene  had  come  at  odds  with  theatrical  managers 
several  years  before  Shakespeare  could  have  attained  to  the 
position  of  reader  for  the  Burbages.  Even  some  of  Greene's 
earlier  reflections,  however,  seem  to  be  directed  against  the 
management  of  the  Shoreditch  Theatre.  In  attacking 
theatrical  managers  he  writes  in,  what  he  calls,  "mystical 
speeches,"  and  transfigures  the  persons  he  attacks  under 
fictitious  characters  and  names.  In  his  Planetomachia^ 
published  in  1585,  he  caricatures  one  actor-manager  under 
the  name  of  Valdracko,  who  is  an  actor  in  Venus'  Tragedy, 
one  of  the  tales  of  the  book.  Valdracko  is  described  as  an 
old  and  experienced  actor,  "  stricken  in  age,  melancholick, 
ruling  after  the  crabbed  forwardness  of  his  doting  will, 
impartial,  for  he  loved  none  but  himself,  politic  because 
experienced,  familiar  with  none  except  for  his  profit,  skillful 
in  dissembling,  trusting  no  one,  silent,  covetous,  counting  all 
things  honest  that  were  profitable."  This  characterisation 
cannot  possibly  have  referred  to  Shakespeare  in  the  year 
1585.  When  it  is  noticed,  however,  that  nearly  all  of 
Greene's  later  attacks  are  directed  against  the  Theatre 
and  its  fellows,  it  is  probable  that  the  stubborn,  wilful,  and 
aged  James  Burbage  is  also  here  scurrilously  indicated.  In 
writing  of  London  and  the  actors  in  his  "dark  speeches," 
Greene  refers  to  London  as  Rome  and  to  the  Shoreditch 
Theatre  as  the  "theatre  in  Rome."  In  his  Penelope's  Web 
he  writes :  "  They  which  smiled  at  the  theatre  in  Rome 


THE   SCHOLARS  107 

might  as  soon  scoff  at  the  rudeness  of  the  scene  as  give  a 
plaudite  at  the  perfection  of  the  acting."  While  it  is  Bur- 
bage's  Theatre  that  is  here  referred  to,  it  is  evident  that 
his  quarrel  was  not  now  with  the  actors — whom  both  he  and 
Nashe  praise  in  their  quality — but  with  the  plays,  their 
authors,  and  the  theatrical  managers  who  patronised  them. 

It  is  evident  that  Shakespeare  had  something  to  do  with 
the  acceptance  by  the  Burbages  of  plays  by  Marlowe  and 
Kyd,  and  that  Greene  believed  his  own  lack  of  patronage  by 
the  companies  playing  at  the  Theatre  was  due  to  Shake- 
speare's adverse  influence.  Knowing  Shakespeare  to  be  the 
son  of  a  Stratford  butcher,  educated  at  a  grammar  school  and 
recently  a  bonded  servitor  to  Burbage,  this  "  Master  of  Arts  in 
Cambridge"  questions  the  literary  and  dramatic  judgment 
of  the  grammar  school  youth,  and  late  serving-man,  and 
employs  his  fellow  university  scholar,  Thomas  Nashe,  to 
ridicule  him  and  his  critical  pretensions. 

Nashe  returned  to  England  in  1589,  after  a  two  years' 
absence  upon  the  Continent,  and  cannot  have  acquired  at 
first  hand  the  knowledge  he  shows  of  dramatic  affairs  in 
London  during  the  preceding  year.  It  is  evident  that  this 
knowledge  was  gained  from  Greene  for  that  purpose.  Mr. 
Fleay  has  demonstrated  that  Nashe,  in  his  preface  to  Greene's 
Menaphon,  alludes  satirically  to  Thomas  Kyd  as  the  author 
of  The  Taming  of  a  Shrew,  and  of  the  old  Hamlet.  Both 
of  these  plays  were  owned  by  Lord  Strange's  (now  the  Lord 
Chamberlain's)  company  in  1594,  when,  as  I  have  suggested, 
they  had  recently  taken  them  over  from  Pembroke's  com- 
pany, which  was  undoubtedly  a  Burbage  company — using 
some  of  the  Burbage  properties  and  plays  while  under 
Shakespeare's  management  in  1591-94.  Being  Burbage 
properties,  these  plays  were  acted  by  Lord  Strange's  company 


108    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST  YEARS 

between  1589  and  1591.  Besides  satirically  indicating  these 
plays  and  their  author,  Nashe  goes  on  to  criticise  the  "  idiot 
art-masters  "  who  make  choice  of  such  plays  for  the  actors. 
"  This  affectation  of  actors  and  audience,"  writes  Nashe — 
meaning  this  suiting  of  plays  to  the  crude  taste  of  the  actors 
and  the  cruder  taste  of  the  public — "  is  all  traceable  to  their 
idiot  art-masters  that  intrude  themselves  as  the  alchemists  of 
eloquence,  who  (mounted  on  the  stage  of  arrogance)  think 
to  outbrave  better  pens  with  the  swelling  bombast  of 
bragging  blank  verse,  indeed  it  may  be  the  ingrafted  over- 
flow of  some  killcow  conceit,  etc.  Among  this  kind  of  men 
that  repose  eternity  in  the  mouth  of  a  player  I  can  but 
engross  some  deep  read  school  men  or  grammarians,  who  have 
no  more  learning  in  their  skull  than  will  serve  to  take  up  a 
commodity ',  nor  art  in  their  brains  than  was  nourished  in  a 
serving  man's  idleness,  will  take  upon  them  to  be  ironical 
censurers  of  all  when  God  and  poetry  doth  know  they  are 
the  simplest  of  all." 

This  attack  of  Nashe's  upon  Shakespeare  was  recognised 
by  all  of  the  scholastic  clique,  and  certain  of  its  phrases  are 
re-echoed  in  later  attacks  upon  him  by  other  scholars  for 
several  years  afterwards ;  in  fact,  Nashe's  diatribe  proved  to 
be  a  cue  for  Shakespeare's  future  detractors.  In  the  expres- 
sion "  killcow,"  Nashe  alludes  to  Shakespeare's  father's  trade. 
A  few  years  later — 1594 — Chapman  refers  to  Shakespeare  as 
"judgements  butcher,"  and  later  still,  in  1598,  Florio  in  his 
dedication  of  the  Worlde  of  Wordes,  and,  in  1600,  Ben 
Jonson  in  Every  Man  out  of  his  Humour,  also  refer  satirically 
to  the  supposed  fact  that  Shakespeare's  father  was  a  butcher. 
In  1593  Chapman,  in  attacking  Shakespeare  in  the  early 
Histriomastix,  re-echoes  the  term  "idiot  art-master."  The 
phrase  "ingrafted  overflow  of  a  killcow  conceit"  refers  to 


THE   SCHOLARS  109 

Shakespeare's  additions  to,  or  revisions  of,  plays  owned  by 
his  company  that  were  originally  written  by  such  scholars 
as  Greene.  "  Deep  read  school  men  or  grammarians "  is  a 
reference  to  Shakespeare's  grammar  school  education.  "  No 
more  learning  than  will  serve  to  take  up  a  commodity  "  refers 
to  Shakespeare's  business  management  of  Burbage's  affairs, 
and  "  a  serving  man's  idleness  "  to  his  recently  ended  term 
of  service  with  Burbage  in  that  capacity. 

It  shall  be  shown  that  in  later  years  when  Chapman, 
Roydon,  Florio,  Marston,  and  Jonson  attacked  Shakespeare 
in  published  or  acted  plays  that  he  invariably  answers  them 
in  kind.  We  have  only  inferential  evidence  that  he  answered 
Greene's  and  Nashe's  reflections  at  this  time  by  writing  a 
ballad  against  them.  Ralph  Sidley,  in  verses  prefixed  to 
Greene's  Never  Too  Late,  published  in  the  following  year 
(1590),  defends  Greene  from  the  attack  of  a  ballad  or  jig 
maker,  whom  he  calls  a  clown. 

"The  more  it  works,  the  quicker  is  the  wit; 
The  more  it  writes,  the  better  to  be  'steemed. 
By  labour  ought  men's  wills  and  wits  be  deem'd, 
Though  dreaming  dunces  do  inveigh  against  it. 
But  write  thou  on,  though  Momus  sit  and  frown ; 
A  Carter's  jig  is  fittest  for  a  clown. 

Bonum  quo  communius  eo  melius." 

At  the  end  of  Greene's  Never  Too  Late  in  the  host's  tale 
a  ballad  maker  and  player  is  attacked  under  the  name  of 
Mullidor ;  he  is  described  as  follows :  "  He  is  said  to  be  a 
fellow  that  was  of  honest  parents,  but  very  poor:  and  his 
person  was  as  if  he  had  been  cast  in  JEsop's  mould  ;  his 
back  like  a  lute,  and  his  face  like  Thersites',  his  eyes  broad 
and  tawny,  his  hair  harsh  and  curled  like  a  horse-mane,  his 
lips  were  of  the  largest  size  in  folio.  .  .  .  The  only  good  part 
that  he  had  to  grace  his  visage  was  his  nose,  and  that  was 


110    SHAKESPEARE'S  LOST  YEARS 

conqueror-like,  as  beaked  as  an  eagle.  .  .  .  Into  his  great 
head  (Nature)  put  little  wit,  that  he  knew  rather  his  sheep 
by  the  number,  for  he  was  never  no  good  arithmetician, 
and  yet  he  was  a  proper  scholar,  and  well  seen  in 
ditties." 

When  we  discount  the  caricature  and  spiteful  animus  of 
this  description  it  closely  matches  the  presentments  of 
Shakespeare  given  by  the  most  authoritative  portraits  which 
have  come  down  to  us.  His  parents,  as  we  know,  were  un- 
doubtedly poor,  otherwise  he  would  not  have  been  in  London 
as  a  servitor  to  Burbage.  His  eyes  are  invariably  shown  as 
hazel  in  colour  and  widely  set  apart ;  his  hair  heavy,  curled, 
and  falling  to  his  shoulders;  his  lips  very  full,  his  nose 
large  and  "beaked,"  and  his  brow,  or  "great  head,"  of 
unusual  height  and  breadth.  It  is  apparent,  then,  that  this 
is  a  spiteful  and  distorted,  but  recognisable,  description  of 
Shakespeare,  who,  I  infer  from  many  indications  in  his 
opponents'  plays,  wore  his  hair  in  a  peculiar  manner,  was 
not  very  tall,  and  was  also  somewhat  thin-legged.  The 
Chandos  portrait  which  shows  his  shoulders,  suggests  that 
they  were  slightly  sloping  and  somewhat  round  rather 
than  square.  On  the  whole,  a  physical  type  not  calculated 
to  inspire  fear  in  a  bully.  Greene,  on  the  other  hand,  is 
described  by  Chettle  as  a  handsome-faced  and  well-propor- 
tioned man,  and  we  may  judge  of  a  rather  swash-buckling 
deportment. 

Robert  Greene  died  in  September  1592.  Shortly  after- 
wards Henry  Chettle  published  Greene's  Groatsworth  of  Wit, 
which  was  his  last  literary  effort,  and  appended  a  farewell 
letter  of  Greene's  addressed  "  To  those  gentlemen,  his 
quandam  acquaintances,  that  spend  their  time  in  making 
plays,  R.  G.  wisheth  a  better  exercise  and  wisdom  to  prevent 


THE   SCHOLARS  111 

his  extremities."  In  this  epistle,  addressing  Marlowe,  Nashe, 
and  Peele,  as  well  as  two  others  at  whose  identity  we  can 
only  guess,  he  says : 

"  If  wofull  experience  may  move  you,  gentlemen,  to 
beware,  or  unheard-of  wretchedness  intreat  you  to  take  heed, 
I  doubt  not  but  you  will  look  backe  with  sorrow  on  your 
time  past,  and  endevour  with  repentance  to  spend  that  which 
is  to  come.  Wonder  not  (for  with  thee  will  I  first  beginne), 
thou  famous  gracer  of  tragedians,  that  Greene,  who  hath 
said  with  thee,  like  the  foole  in  his  heart, '  There  is  no  God/ 
should  now  give  glorie  unto  his  greatnesse ;  for  penetrating 
is  his  power,  his  hand  lyes  heavy  upon  me,  he  hath  spoken 
unto  me  with  a  voyce  of  thunder,  and  I  have  felt  he  is  a  God 
that  can  punish  enemies.  Why  should  thy  excellent  wit,  his 
gift,  be  so  blinded  that  thou  shouldest  give  no  glory  to  the 
giver?  Is  it  pestilent  Machivilian  policie  that  thou  hast 
studied?  O  peevish  follie!  what  are  his  rules  but  meere 
confused  mockeries,  able  to  extirpate  in  small  time  the 
generation  of  mankinde?  for  if  sic  volo,  sic  iubeo,  holde  in 
those  that  are  able  to  command,  and  if  it  be  lawfull  fas  et 
nefas,  to  doo  any  thing  that  is  beneficiall,  onely  tyrants  should 
possesse  the  earth,  and  they,  striving  to  exceed  in  tiranny, 
should  each  to  other  be  a  slaughterman,  till,  tho  mightyest 
outliving  all,  one  stroke  were  left  for  Death,  that  in  one  age 
mans  life  should  end.  .  .  .  With  thee  I  joyne  young  Juvenall, 
that  by  ting  satyrist,  that  lastly  with  mee  together  writ  a 
comedie.  Sweet  boy,  might  I  advise  thee,  be  advised,  and 
get  not  many  enemies  by  bitter  words  ;  inveigh  against 
vaine  men,  for  thou  canst  doo  it,  no  man  better,  no  man  so 
well ;  thou  hast  a  libertie  to  reproove  all  and  name  none ; 
for  one  being  spoken  to,  all  are  offended — none  being  blamed, 
no  man  is  injured.  Stop  shallow  water  still  running,  it  will 
rage ;  tread  on  a  worme,  and  it  will  turne ;  then  blame  not 
schollers  who  are  vexed  with  sharpe  and  bitter  lines,  if  they 
reproove  thy  too  much  liberty  of  reproofe. 


112    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST    YEARS 

"And  thou  no  lesse  deserving  then  the  other  two,  in 
some  things  rarer,  in  nothing  inferiour,  driven,  as  myselfe, 
to  extreame  shifts,  a  little  have  I  to  say  to  thee ;  and,  were 
it  not  an  idolatrous  oath,  I  would  sweare  by  sweet  S.  George, 
thou  art  unworthy  better  hap,  sith  thou  dependest  on  so 
mean  a  stay.  Base-minded  men  all  three  of  you,  if  by 
my  misery  yee  bee  not  warned ;  for  unto  none  of  you,  like 
me,  sought  those  burs  to  cleave ;  those  puppits,  I  meane, 
that  speake  from  our  mouths,  those  anticks  garnisht  in  our 
colours.  Is  it  not  strange  that  I  to  whom  they  have  been 
beholding,  is  it  not  like  that  you  to  whom  they  all  have 
been  beholding,  shall,  were  yee  in  that  case  that  I  am  now, 
be  both  of  them  at  once  forsaken  ?  Yes,  trust  them  not ; 
for  there  is  an  upstart  crow  beautified  with  our  feathers, 
that,  with  his  Tygres  heart  wrapt  in  a  players  hyde,  supposes 
hee  is  as  well  able  to  bombast  out  a  blanke- verse  as  the 
best  of  you;  and,  beeing  an  absolute  Johannes-fac-totum, 
is  in  his  owne  conceit  the  onely  Shake-scene  in  a  countrey. 
Oh,  that  I  might  intreat  your  rare  wittes  to  bee  imployed 
in  more  profitable  courses,  and  let  these  apes  imitate  your 
past  excellence,  and  never  more  acquaynte  them  with  your 
admyred  inventions!  I  knowe  the  best  husband  of  you 
all  will  never  proove  an  usurer,  and  the  kindest  of  them 
all  will  never  proove  a  kinde  nurse;  yet,  whilst  you  may, 
seeke  you  better  maisters ;  for  it  is  pitty  men  of  such  rare 
wits  should  bee  subject  to  the  pleasures  of  such  rude 
groomes. 

"In  this  I  might  insert  two  more1  that  both  have  writte 

1  "  The  two  more "  here  indicated  by  Greene  are,  I  believe,  Lodge  and 
Matthew  Roydon,  both  of  whom  are  mentioned  by  Nashe  in  his  address  "To 
the  Gentlemen  of  the  two  Universities"  prefixed  to  Greene's  Menaphon.  I 
have  elsewhere  shown  that  Roydon  was  a  prolific  ballad  writer  who  invariably 
wrote  anonymously,  or  under  pen  names,  and  have  made  evident  his  authorship 
of  Willobie  his  Avtsa,  as  well  as  its  anti-Shakespearean  intention.  Roydon 
also  wrote  plays  as  well  as  ballads,  and  was  possibly  one  of  the  "theological 
poets  "  referred  to  by  Greene  in  the  introduction  to  his  Farewell  to  Folly  t  who, 
he  intimates,  were  averse  "for  their  calling  and  gravity"  to  have  their  names 


THE   SCHOLARS  113 

against  these  buckram  gentlemen ;  but  let  their  owne  worke 
serve  to  witnesse  against  their  owne  wickednesse,  if  they 
persever  to  maintaine  any  more  such  peasants.  For  other 
new  comers,  I  leave  them  to  the  mercie  of  those  painted 
monsters,  who,  I  doubt  not,  will  drive  the  best-minded  to 
despise  them ;  for  the  rest,  it  skills  not  though  they  make 
a  jeast  at  them.  ..." 

It  is  now  accepted  by  critics  that  these  allusions  of 
Greene's  were  directed  against  Shakespeare,  and  that  the 
line  "  Tygres  heart  wrapt  in  a  players  hyde "  refers  to 
Shakespeare's  revision  of  The  True  Tragedy  of  Richard, 
Duke  of  York,  a  play  in  the  original  composition  of  which 
Greene  evidently  had  some  hand.  It  has  not  before 
been  suggested,  however,  that  this  play  was  performed 
by  the  Earl  of  Pembroke's  company,  under  Shakespeare's 
management,  in  1592.  It  was  evidently  the  publi- 
city given  Marlowe's  and  Shakespeare's  revision  by  the 
stage  revival  of  the  play  by  Pembroke's  company  at 
this  time  that  called  forth  Greene's  attack.  This  brings 
us  to  the  end  of  the  year  1592  in  outlining  chronologi- 
cally the  evidences  of  the  antagonism  of  the  scholars  to 
Shakespeare. 

In  June  1593  George  Peele  shows  animus  against 
Shakespeare  by  echoing  Greene's  phrases  in  the  introduction 
to  The  Honour  of  the  Garter.  In  these  verses,  in  compli- 
menting several  noblemen  and  "  gentlemen  poets,"  such  as 

appear  as  the  authors  of  ballads  or  plays,  and  so  secured  "some  other  batillus 
to  set  their  names  to  their  verses."  Roydon's  affected  anonymity  is  referred  to 
by  several  other  contemporary  writers.  Robert  Arnim  writes  of  him  as  "  a 
light  that  shines  not  in  the  world  as  it  is  wished,  but  yet  the  worth  of  his 
lustre  is  known."  Roydon  was  a  curate  of  the  Established  Church.  Shake- 
speare's lack  of  respect  for  Church  of  England  curates,  which  is  several  times 
exhibited  in  his  plays,  was,  no  doubt,  due  in  some  degree  to  his  dislike  of 
Roydon. 
8 


114    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

Sidney,  Spenser,  Harrington,  Fraunce,  Campion,  and  others, 
he  refers  also  to 

"  ordinary  grooms, 

With  trivial  humours  to  pastime  the  world, 
That  favour  Pan  and  Phoebus  both  alike." 

This  appears  to  be  a  reflection  of  Greene's  "  rude  groomes  " 
of  the  previous  September  and  a  reference  to  Shakespeare's 
theatrical  work  and  his  Venus  and  Adonis,  which,  though 
only  recently  published,  had  no  doubt  been  read  in  MS. 
form  for  some  time  before. 

I  shall  now  proceed  to  show  that  at  the  end  of  1593, 
after  Lord  Pembroke's  company  had  returned  from  their 
unprofitable  provincial  tour  when  they  were  compelled  to 
"  pawn  their  apparel  for  their  charges,"  George  Chapman 
wrote  a  play  satirising  Shakespeare  and  the  disastrous 
fortunes  of  this  company.  This  play  was  revised  by  Marston 
and  Chapman  in  1 599,  under  the  title  of  Histriomastix,  or 
The  Player  Whipt,  as  a  counter-attack  upon  Shakespeare  in 
order  to  revenge  the  satire  which  he,  in  conjunction  with 
Dekker  and  Chettle,  directed  against  Chapman  and  Marston 
in  Troilus  and  Cressida,  and  in  a  play  reconstructed  from 
Troilus  and  Cressida  by  Dekker  and  Chettle,  called 
Agamemnon,  in  1598-99.  This  latter  phase  of  the  matter 
shall  be  dealt  with  when  I  come  to  a  consideration  of  the 
literary  warfare  of  the  later  period. 

It  has  never  before  been  suggested  that  George  Chapman 
had  any  hand  in  the  composition  of  Histriomastix,  though 
Mr.  Richard  Simpson  shows  clearly  that  it  was  an  old 
play  roughly  revised  in  the  form  in  which  it  was  acted  in 
1599.  Mr.  Simpson  suggests  that  it  might  have  been 
written  by  Peele,  in  its  original  form,  owing  to  certain  verbal 
resemblances  between  portions  of  it  and  Peele's  dedication 


THE   SCHOLARS  115 

to  his  Honour  of  the  Garter.  He  dates  its  original  com- 
position in  about  1590,  but  in  doing  so  had  evidently 
forgotten  that  he  had  already  written :  "  The  early 
Chrisoganus  (of  this  play)  seems  to  be  of  the  time  when 
the  Earl  of  Northumberland,  Raleigh,  and  Harriot  strove 
to  set  up  an  Academy  in  London,  and  the  spirit  of  the 
play,  and  even  its  expressions,  were  quite  in  unison  with 
Peek's  dedication  of  his  Honour  of  the  Garter >  1593."  All 
literary  and  historical  references  to  the  academical  efforts 
of  the  Earl  of  Northumberland,  Harriot,  and  others  point 
to  the  years  1591-93  as  the  time  in  which  this  attempt  to 
establish  an  Academy  was  made.  Chapman  in  his  dedication 
of  The  Shadow  of  Night  to  Roy  don,  in  1594,  refers  to  the 
movement  as  then  of  comparatively  recent  date.  "But  I 
stay  this  spleen  when  I  remember,  my  good  Matthew, 
how  joyfully  oftentimes  you  reported  unto  me  that  most 
ingenious  Derby,  deep-searching  Northumberland,  and  skill- 
embracing  Earl  of  Hunsdon  had  most  profitably  entertained 
learning  in  themselves  to  the  vital  warmth  of  freezing 
Science,"  etc.  Peele's  allusions  to  the  movement  in  his 
dedication  to  the  Honour  of  the  Garter^  which  is  dated 
26th  June  1 593,  are  as  follows : 

"  Renowned  Lord,  Northumberland's  fair  flower, 
The  Muses'  love,  patron  and  favourite, 
That  artisans  and  scholars  dost  embrace. 
And  clothest  Mathesis  in  rich  ornaments, 
That  admirable  mathematic  skill, 
Familiar  with  the  stars  and  Zodiac, 
To  whom  the  heaven  lies  open  as  her  book  ; 
By  whose  directions  undeceivable, 
Leaving  our  Schoolmen's  vulgar  trodden  paths, 
And  following  the  ancient  reverent  steps 
Of  Trismegistus  and  Pythagoras, 
Through  uncouth  ways  and  unaccessible, 
Doth  pass  into  the  pleasant  spacious  fields 
Of  divine  science  and  philosophy,"  etc. 


116    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

Shakespeare  evidently  reflects  knowledge  of  this  academical 
attempt  and  pokes  fun  at  the  scholars  in  his  reference  to 
"  a  little  academic  "  in  Love's  Labour's  Lost : 

"  Navarre  shall  be  the  wonder  of  the  world 
Our  Court  shall  be  a  little  academic 
Still  and  contemplative  in  living  art." 

This  play  was  originally  written  late  in  1591,  but  was 
drastically  revised  late  in  1594,  or  early  in  1595,  after 
Shakespeare  had  read  Chapman's  Hymns  to  the  Shadow 
of  Night ;  and  again,  in  1 598.  The  reference  to  the  Academy 
was  evidently  introduced  at  the  time  of  its  first  revision. 

Mr.  Simpson  recognises  the  fact  that  most  of  the 
Chrisoganus  passages,  especially  those  in  the  earlier  portions 
of  Histriomastix^  pertain  to  the  play  in  its  original  form. 
If  the  reader  will  take  the  trouble  to  read  Chapman's  Hymns 
to  the  Shadow  of  Night  (1594),  his  poem  to  Thomas 
Harriot,  and  his  Tears  of  Peace>  and  compare  their  mental 
attitude  and  verbal  characteristics  with  the  "  Chrisoganus  " 
and  "  Peace  "  passages  of  Histriomastix,  Chapman's  author- 
ship of  the  latter  will  become  apparent.  The  following 
parallels  from  four  of  Chapman's  poems  are  convincing,  and 
they  can  be  extended  indefinitely  : 
Histriomastix — 

"Have  always  borne  themselves  in  Godlike  State 
With  lofty  foreheade  higher  than  the  stars." 

De  Guiana^  Carmen  Epicum — 

"Whose  forehead  knocks  against  the  roof  of  stars." 
Histriomastix — 

"  Consume  whole  groves  and  standing  fields  of  corn 
In  thy  wild  rage  and  make  the  proud  earth  groan." 

The  Shadow  of  Night— 

"Convert  the  violent  courses  of  thy  floods, 
Remove  whole  fields  of  corn  and  highest  woods." 


THE   SCHOLARS  117 


Histriomastix — 


"Whose  glory  which  thy  solid  virtues  won 
Shall  honour  Europe  while  there  shines  a  sun." 

Poem  to  Harriot — 

"  When  thy  true  wisdom  by  thy  learning  won 
Shall  honour  learning  while  there  shines  a  sun." 

Chapman  in  several  instances  in  this  play  echoes  Greene's 
slurs  against  Shakespeare  and,  in  the  same  manner  as  Peele 
in  the  Honour  of  the  Garter,  repeats  the  actual  phrases  and 
epithets  used  by  Greene  and  Nashe. 

Histriomastix — 

"  I  scorn  a  scoffing  fool  about  my  throne — 
An  artless  idiot  (that  like  ^sop's  daw 
Plumes  fairer  feathered  birds)." 

These  lines  evince  Chapman's  knowledge  of  Nashe's 
phrase  "  idiot  art-master,"  and  of  Greene's  "  upstart  crow 
beautified  with  our  feathers,"  and  clearly  pertain  to  the  play 
in  its  earlier  form  (1593)  when  Greene's  Groatsworth  of  Wit 
(published  late  in  1592)  was  still  a  new  publication.  In  fact, 
it  is  not  improbable  that  Nashe  collaborated  with  Chapman 
in  the  early  form  of  this  play. 

Again  when  Chapman  writes  the  following  lines : 
Histriomastix — 

"O  age,  when  every  Scriveners  boy  shall  dippe 
Profaning  quills  into  Thessalies  spring; 
When  every  artist  prentice  that  hath  read 
The  pleasant  pantry  of  conceipts  shall  dare 
To  write  as  confident  as  Hercules ; 
When  every  ballad-monger  boldly  writes,"  etc. 

It  is  apparent  that  he  again  echoes  Nashe's  and  Greene's 
attacks  upon  Shakespeare  and  Thomas  Kyd,  all  of  which, 
however,  he  appears  to  have  thought  (as  have  later  critics) 
were  directed  against  Shakespeare. 


118    SHAKESPEARE'S  LOST  YEARS 

The  lines  quoted  above  evidently  reflect  Chapman's 
knowledge  of  Nashe's  preface  to  Greene's  Menaphon  in  the 
expressions  "  Scriveners  boy,"  "  artist  prentice,"  and  "  ballad- 
monger,"  while  the  words 

"shall  dippe 
Profaning  quills  into  Thessalies  spring" 

refer  to  Shakespeare's  Venus  and  Adonis ',  and  the  lines  from 
Ovid  with  which  he  heads  that  poem. 

In  1593  when,  as  I  have  indicated,  Histriomastix  in  its 
early  form  was  written,  Shakespeare  had  published  Venus 
and  Adonis  and  dedicated  it  to  the  Earl  of  Southampton. 
In  the  composition  of  this  poem  Shakespeare  undoubtedly 
worked  from  Arthur  Golding's  translation  of  Ovid's 
Metamorphoses.  He  prefixed  to  the  poem  two  lines  from 
Ovid's  fifteenth  Elegy : 

"  Vilia  miretur  vulgus ;  mihi  flavus  Apollo 
Pocula  Castalia  plena  ministret  aqua "  ; 

which  are  rendered  in  Marlowe's  translation  : 

"Let  base  conceited  wits  admire  vile  things, 
Fair  Phoebus  lead  me  to  the  Muses  springs." 

In  The  Shadow  of  Night >  published  in  the  following 
year,  Chapman  again  resents  the  fact  that  one  of  Shake- 
speare's "  small  Latin  and  less  Greek  "  should  invade  the 
classical  preserves  of  the  scholars  for  his  poetical  and 
dramatic  subjects : 

"  Then  you  that  exercise  the  virgin  court 
Of  peaceful  Thespia,  my  muse  consort, 
Making  her  drunken  with  Gorgonean  dews, 
And  therewith  all  your  ecstasies  infuse, 
That  she  may  reach  the  topless  starry  brows 
Of  steep  Olympus,  crown'd  with  freshest  boughs 
Of  Daphnean  laurel,  and  the  praises  sing 
Of  mighty  Cynthia :  truly  figuring 


THE   SCHOLARS  119 

(As  she  is  Hecate)  her  sovereign  kind, 
And  in  her  force,  the  forces  of  the  mind : 
An  argument  to  ravish  and  refine 
An  earthly  soul  and  make  it  more  devine. 
Sing  then  with  all,  her  palace  brightness  bright, 
The  dazzle-sun  perfection  of  her  light ; 
Circling  her  face  with  glories,  sing  the  walks, 
Where  in  her  heavenly  magic  mood  she  stalks, 
Her  arbours,  thickets,  and  her  wondrous  game, 
(A  huntress  being  never  match'd  in  fame,) 
Presume  not  then  ye  flesh- confounded  souls ; 
That  cannot  bear  the  full  Castalian  bowls, 
Which  sever  mounting  spirits  from  the  senses, 
To  look  into  this  deep  fount  for  thy  pretenses" 

In  these  lines,  besides  indicating  Shakespeare's  recent 
Ovidian  excursion  in  Venus  and  Adonis  by  his  reference  to 
"Castalian  bowls,"  Chapman  shows  knowledge  of  Shake- 
speare's intention,  in  the  composition  of  Loves  Labours  Lost, 
of  exhibiting  Queen  Elizabeth  as  a  huntress.  Chapman's 
Cynthia  of  The  Shadow  of  Night  is  plainly  a  rhapsodised 
idealisation  of  the  Queen.  Later  on  I  shall  elaborate  the 
fact  that  Love's  Labour's  Lost  was  written  late  in  1591,  or 
early  in  1592,  as  a  reflection  of  the  Queen's  progress  to 
Cowdray  House,  the  home  of  the  Earl  of  Southampton's 
maternal  grandfather,  Viscount  Montague,  and  that  the 
shooting  of  deer  by  the  Princess  and  her  ladies  fancifully 
records  phases  of  the  entertainments  arranged  for  the  Queen 
during  her  visit. 

Assuming,  then,  from  the  foregoing  evidence  and  inferences 
that  Chapman  composed  the  early  Histriomastix  in  1593, 
let  us  examine  the  play  further  in  order  to  trace  its  fuller 
application  to  Shakespeare  and  his  affairs  in  that  year. 

Though  Histriomastix  was  revised  as  an  attack  upon 
Shakespeare  in  1599  by  Chapman  and  Marston,  who  had 
commenced  to  collaborate  in  dramatic  work  in  the  previous 
year,  its  original  plot  and  action  remain  practically  unaltered. 


120    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

In  its  revision  its  early  anti-Shakespearean  intention  was 
merely  amplified  and  brought  up  to  date  by  a  few  topical 
allusions,  fitting  circumstances  in  the  lives  of  the  persons 
caricatured,  pertaining  to  the  later  period.  The  substitution 
of  Troilus  and  Cressida  for  The  Prodigal  Child>  as  the  play 
within  the  play  presented  by  Sir  Oliver  Owlet's  company, 
is  also  due  to  the  period  of  revision.  All  of  the  passages 
of  the  play  which  are  suggestive  of  the  period  of  revision 
are  palpably  in  the  style  of  John  Marston. 

Among  the  persons  of  the  early  play  is  Chrisoganus,  a 
scholar  and  mathematician,  who  has  set  up  an  academy 
to  expound  the  seven  liberal  Sciences  :  Grammar,  Logic, 
Rhetoric,  Arithmetic,  Geometry,  Music,  and  Astronomy,  all 
of  which  are  introduced  as  persons  in  the  first  act.  Chriso- 
ganus was  undoubtedly  intended  for  Chapman's  friend 
Thomas  Harriot,  the  mathematician  and  astronomer,  who 
was  so  prominent  in  the  academical  movement  of  1592-93. 
The  name  Chrisoganus  is  evidently  a  reflection  of  Harriot's 
Ephemeris  Chrisometra^  a  MS.  copy  of  which  is  preserved  in 
Zion  College.  Chapman's  poem  to  Harriot,  prefixed  to  his 
Achilles  Shield  (1599),  expresses  many  of  the  same  ideas 
voiced  in  Histriomastix  and  in  much  the  same  language,  and 
indicates  Chapman's  collaboration  with  Marston  in  the 
revision  of  the  play  in  that  year. 

In  the  early  Histriomastix  Chapman  represents  himself  in 
the  character  of  Peace.  When  the  utterances  of  Peace  are 
compared  with  certain  of  Chapman's  poems,  such  as  his 
Euthymia  Raptus,  or  The  Tears  of  Peace  (1609),  his  poem  to 
Harriot  (1598),  The  Shadow  of  Night  (1594),  and  Ovid's 
Banquet  of  Sense  (1595),  in  all  of  which  he  breaks  away 
from  his  subject-matter  at  intervals  to  extol  his  own  virtues 
and  bewail  his  poverty  and  his  neglect  by  patrons,  it  becomes 


THE   SCHOLARS  121 

evident  that  he  transfigures  himself  in  Histriomastix  as  Peace  ; 
which  character  acts  as  a  chorus  to,  or  running  commentary 
on,  the  action  of  the  play. 

The  whole  spirit  and  purpose  of  this  play  is  reproduced 
in  The  Tears  of  Peace,  which  is  a  dialogue  between  Peace 
and  an  interlocutor,  who  discuss  at  great  length  exactly 
the  same  ideas  and  subjects,  dramatically  treated,  in  Histrio- 
mastix, i.e.  the  neglect  of  learning  and  the  learned,  and 
"  the  pursuit  of  wealth,  glory,  greatness,  pleasure,  and  fashion  " 
by  "plebian  and  lord  alike,"  as  well  as  the  unaccountable 
success  of  an  ignorant  playwright  who  writes  plays  on  any 
subject  that  comes  into  his  head  : 

"And  how  they  trot  out  in  their  lines  the  ring 
With  idly  iterating  oft  one  thing, 
A  new  fought  combat,  an  affair  at  sea, 
A  marriage  or  progress  or  a  plea. 
No  news  but  fits  them  as  if  made  for  them, 
Though  it  be  forged  but  of  a  woman's  dream." 

The  plays  of  no  other  dramatist  of  that  period  match  the 
description  of  the  subjects  of  the  plays  given  here.  The 
"  progress,"  mentioned  by  Chapman,  is  undoubtedly  a  refer- 
ence to  Loves  Labours  Lost]  "A  marriage,"  Midsummer 
Night's  Dream  ;  "  a  plea,"  The  Merchant  of  Venice ;  "  A  new 
fought  combat,"  Henry  V. — as  a  reflection  of  the  military 
services  of  Southampton  and  Essex  in  Ireland  in  1599 ; 
"  an  affair  at  sea,"  Twelfth  Night,  The  Merchant  of  Venice, 
etc. 

In  the  second  scene  of  Histriomastix,  to  Peace,  the  Arts, 
and  Chrisoganus,  come  Mavortius  and  a  group  of  his  friends 
representing  the  nobility  whom  the  academicians  endeavour 
to  win  to  their  attendance  and  support.  Mavortius  and  his 
followers  refuse  to  cultivate  Chrisoganus  and  the  Arts,  pre- 
ferring a  life  of  dalliance  and  pleasure,  and  to  patronise 


122    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

plays  and  players  instead.  Other  characters  are  introduced 
representing  the  Law,  the  Army,  and  Merchandise,  who 
also  neglect  the  Arts  and  live  for  pastime  and  sport. 

The  company  of  players  patronised  by  Mavortius  performs 
under  the  licence  of  Sir  Oliver  Owlet,  and  under  the  leader- 
ship of  Posthaste,  an  erstwhile  ballad  maker,  who  writes 
plays  for  the  company  and  who  threatens  to  return  to  ballad 
making  when  playing  proves  unprofitable. 

One  of  Mavortius'  followers,  Landulpho,  an  Italian  lord, 
criticises  the  play  presented  by  Posthaste  and  his  fellows, 
and  lauds  the  Italian  drama. 

A  period  of  peace  and  prosperity,  during  which  Chriso- 
ganus  and  the  Arts  are  neglected  by  the  extravagant  and 
pleasure-seeking  lords  and  populace,  is  followed  by  war  with 
an  aftermath  of  poverty  when  Sir  Oliver  Owlet's  company  of 
players  is  disrupted,  and  the  actors  are  compelled  to  "  pawn 
their  apparel  for  their  charges." 

Enter  CONSTABLE. 

HOST.  Master  Constable,  ho  !  these  players  will  not  pay  their  shot. 

POST.  Faith,  sir,  war  hath  so  pinch'd  us  we  must  pawn. 

CONST.  Alas,  poor  players  !     Hostess,  what  comes  it  to  ? 

HOST.  The  Sharers  dinners  sixpence  a  piece.     The  hirelings— pence. 

POST.  What,  sixpence  an  egg,  and  two  and  two  an  egg  ? 

HOST.  Faith,  famine  affords  no  more. 

POST.  Fellows,  bring  out  the  hamper.     Chose  somewhat  out  o'th  stock. 

Enter  the  Players. 

What  will  you  have  this  cloak  to  pawn  ?    What  think  you  its  worth  ? 
HOST.      Some  fower  groats. 

ONIN.     The  pox  is  in  this  age  ;  here's  a  brave  world  fellows  ! 
POST.      You  may  see  what  it  is  to  laugh  at  the  audience. 
HOST.     Well,  it  shall  serve  for  a  pawn. 

The  further  development  of  this  narrative  will  make  it 
evident  beyond  any  reasonable  doubt  that  Posthaste,  the 
poet-actor,  is  intended  to  caricature  Shakespeare,  and  Sir 


THE   SCHOLARS  123 

Oliver  Owlet's  company  and  its  misfortunes  to  reflect  the 
Earl  of  Pembroke's  company  in  similar  circumstances  in 
J593  J  that  Mavortius  is  the  young  Earl  of  Southampton,  to 
whom  Shakespeare  dedicated  Venus  and  Adonis  in  1593, 
and  Lucrece  in  the  year  following;  that  Landulpho,  the 
Italian  lord,  represents  John  Florio,  who,  in  1591,  in  his 
Second  FruiteSy  criticised  English  historical  drama  and  praised 
Italian  plays,  and  who,  at  about  the  same  time  as  teacher  of 
languages  entered  into  the  pay  and  patronage  of  the  Earl  of 
Southampton,  a  connection  which  his  odd  and  interesting 
personality  enabled  him  to  hold  thereafterwards  for  several 
years.  The  part  which  Landulpho  takes  in  the  play  was 
somewhat  developed  by  Marston  in  1599,  at  which  time  it 
shall  later  on  be  shown  that  the  relations  between  Florio 
and  Shakespeare  had  reached  a  heated  stage.  The  play  of 
The  Prodigal  Child>  which  was  the  play  within  the  play  acted 
by  Posthaste  and  his  fellows  in  the  earlier  form  of  Hisirio- 
mastiX)  did  not,  in  my  opinion,  represent  the  English  original 
of  the  translated  German  play  of  The  Prodigal  Son  which 
Mr.  Simpson  presents  as  the  possible  original,  but  was  meant 
to  indicate  Shakespeare's  Love's  Labour's  Won,  which  was 
written  late  in  the  preceding  year  as  a  reflection  of  South- 
ampton's intimacy  with  Florio,  and  the  beginning  of  his  affair 
with  Mistress  Davenant,1  the  Oxford  tavern  keeper's  wife. 
The  expression  The  Prodigal  Child  differs  from  that  of  The 
Prodigal  Son  in  meaning,  in  that  the  word  "  Child  "  at  that 
period  meant  a  young  nobleman.  There  is  nothing  whatever 

1  Since  the  publication  of  Mistress  Davenant ',  the  Dark  Lady  of  'Shakespeare *s 
Sonnets  t  in  1913,  I  have  learned  that  John  Davenant  was  married  twice. 
Roydon's  Willobie  his  Aviso,  refers  to  his  first  wife,  who  was  Anne  Birde, 
daughter  of  Mayor  William  Birde  of  Bristol,  whom  he  married  before  July 
1592.  I  have  also  found  that  his  second  wife  was  Jane  Shepherd  of  Durham. 
This  matter  will  be  fully  elucidated  in  a  forthcoming  publication. 


124    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

suggestive  of  Shakespeare's  work  in  the  translated  German 
play,  and  it  was  merely  the  similarity  of  title  that  led  Mr. 
Simpson  to  propose  it  as  the  play  indicated.  The  play 
satirised  by  Chapman  under  the  title  of  The  Prodigal  Chila 
was  undoubtedly  written  by  Shakespeare,  and  it  is  no  more 
likely  that  Chapman  would  use  the  actual  name  of  the  play 
at  which  he  points  than  that  he  would  use  the  actual  names 
of  the  various  persons  or  of  the  company  of  players  whose 
actions  and  work  he  caricatures. 

In  1594  George  Chapman  published  Hymns  to  the  Shadow 
of  Nighty  and  in  1595  his  Ovid's  Banquet  of  Sense  and  A 
Coronet  for  his  Mistress  Philosophy  y  dedicating  both  publica- 
tions to  his  friend  Matthew  Roydon.  The  dedication  of 
these  poems  to  Roydon  was  an  afterthought ;  they  were  not 
primarily  written  with  Roydon  in  mind.1  It  has  been  made 
evident  that  Chapman  had  first  submitted  these  poems  to 
the  Earl  of  Southampton  in  an  endeavour  to  win  his  patron- 
age, and  failing  to  do  so  dedicated  them  to  Roydon  and  attacked 
Shakespeare  in  the  dedications,  where  he  refers  to  him  in  the 
capacity  of  reader  to  the  Earl  of  Southampton,  and  imputes 
to  his  adverse  influence  his  ill-success  in  his  attempt.  In 
the  dedication  to  The  Shadow  of  Night  he  writes : 

"  How  then  may  a  man  stay  his  marvailing  to  see  passion- 
driven  men  reading  but  to  curtail  a  tedious  hour  and  altogether 
hidebound  with  affection  to  great  men's  fancies  take  upon 
them  as  killing  censures  as  if  they  were  judgements  butchers 
or  as  if  the  life  of  truth  lay  tottering  in  their  verdicts. 

"  Now  what  supererogation  in  wit  this  is  to  think  skill  so 
mightily  pierced  with  their  loves  that  she  should  prostitutely 
shew  them  her  secrets  when  she  will  scarcely  be  looked  upon 
by  others  but  with  invocation,  fasting,  watching;  yea  not 

1  Shakespeare  and  the  Rival  Poet,  1902. 


THE   SCHOLARS  125 

without  having  drops  of  their  souls  like  an  heavenly  familiar. 
Why  then  should  our  Intonsi  Catones  with  their  profit  ravished 
gravity  esteem  her  true  favours  such  questionless  vanities  as 
with  what  part  soever  thereof  they  seem  to  be  something 
delighted  they  queamishly  commend  it  for  a  pretty  toy. 
Good  Lord  how  serious  and  eternal  are  their  idolatrous  platts 
for  riches." 

The  expression  "  passion-driven,"  as  applied  by  Chapman 
to  Shakespeare  in  1594,  especially  in  a  dedication  written  to 
Matthew  Roydon, — who  in  this  same  year  published  Willobie 
his  Avisa, — plainly  refers  to  Shakespeare's  relations  at  that 
time  with  Mistress  Davenant,  who  was  the  original  for  the 
figure  now  known  as  the  Dark  Lady  of  the  Sonnets,  as  well 
as  for  the  A  visa  of  Willobie  his  Avisa.  The  words  "reading 
but  to  curtail  a  tedious  hour  and  altogether  hidebound  with 
affection  to  great  men's  fancies,"  refer  to  Shakespeare  in  the 
capacity  of  reader  to  the  Earl  of  Southampton.  In  an  attack 
which  John  Florio  makes  upon  Shakespeare  in  1598,  he  also 
makes  a  similar  reference  to  him  in  this  capacity.  The 
expression  "judgements  butcher,"  like  Nashe's  "killcow," 
indicates  Shakespeare's  father's  trade  of  butcher. 

It  was  the  obvious  parallel  between  Chapman's,  "  when 
she  will  scarcely  be  looked  upon  by  others  but  with  invocation, 
fasting,  watching ;  yea  not  without  having  drops  of  their 
souls  like  an  heavenly  familiar,"  and  Shakespeare's  allusion, 
in  Sonnet  86,  to  a  poet  who  attempted  to  supplant  him  in 
Southampton's  favour — 

"  He  nor  that  affable  familiar  ghost 
Which  nightly  gulls  him  with  intelligence, 
As  victors  of  my  silence  cannot  boast ; 
I  was  not  sick  of  any  fear  from  thence : 
But  when  your  countenance  filled  up  his  line, 
Then  lack'd  I  matter  ;  that  enfeebled  mine  "— 


126    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST  YEARS 

that  led  Professor  Minto  to  suggest  Chapman  as  the  rival 
poet  of  the  Sonnets.  In  a  former  essay  I  have  demonstrated 
the  truth  of  Professor  Minto's  suggestion. 

Chapman's  Intonsi  Catones,  or  "  Unshorn  Catos,"  refers  to 
the  peculiar  manner  in  which  Shakespeare  wore  his  hair, 
which  Greene  describes  as  "  harsh  and  curled  like  a  horse- 
mane,"  and  is  also  a  reference  to  his  provincial  breeding  and, 
presumed,  lack  of  culture. 

There  are  a  number  of  indications  in  the  few  facts  we 
possess  of  Shakespeare's  life  in  1594,  and  also  in  his  own 
and  contemporary  publications,  to  warrant  the  assumption 
that  the  Earl  of  Southampton  bestowed  some  unusual 
evidence  of  his  bounty  upon  him  in  this  year.  If  ever  there 
was  a  period  in  his  London  career  in  which  Shakespeare 
needed  financial  assistance  more  than  at  other  times  it  was 
in  this  year.  Lord  Strange's  company  had  now  been  acting 
under  Henslowe's  management  for  two  years.  The  financial 
condition  of  both  Burbage  and  Shakespeare  must  at  this 
time  have  been  at  a  low  ebb.  The  plague  had  prevented 
Pembroke's  company  playing  in  London  for  nearly  a  year, 
and  we  have  seen  that  their  attempts  to  play  in  the  provinces 
had  resulted  in  failure  and  loss.  In  about  the  middle  of 
1594,  however,  Lord  Strange's  players  (now  the  Lord 
Chamberlain's  men)  return  to  Burbage  and  the  Theatre,  when 
Shakespeare  becomes  not  only  a  member  of  the  company, 
but,  from  the  fact  that  his  name  is  mentioned  with  that 
of  Kempe  and  Richard  Burbage  in  the  Court  records 
of  the  payment  for  performances  in  December  1594,  it 
is  evident  that  he  was  then  also  a  leading  sharer  in  the 
company. 

In    parting    from    Henslowe    and    reorganising    under 
Burbage  in  1 594  it  is  apparent  that  the  reorganisers  of  the 


THE  SCHOLARS  127 

Lord  Chamberlain's  men  would  need  considerable  capital 
if  we  may  judge  the  financial  affairs  of  this  company  by 
those  of  the  Lord  Admiral's  company  (subsequently  Lord 
Nottingham's  men)  while  under  Henslowe's  management. 
On  1 3th  October  1599  Henslowe  records  in  his  Diary. 
"  Received  with  the  company  of  my  Lord  of  Nottingham's 
men  to  this  place,  beinge  the  I3th  of  October  1599,  and 
it  doth  appeare  that  I  have  received  of  the  debte  which 
they  owe  unto  me  three  hundred  fifty  and  eight  pounds." 
This  was  only  a  partial  payment  of  this  company's 
debt,  which  evidently  was  considerably  in  excess  of  this 
amount.  It  is  unlikely,  then,  that  Lord  Strange's  company 
was  free  of  debt  to  him  at  the  end  of  their  term  under  his 
management. 

Shakespeare's  earliest  biographer,  Nicholas  Rowe,  records, 
on  the  authority  of  Sir  William  Davenant, "  that  my  Lord 
Southampton  at  one  time  gave  him  a  thousand  pounds  to 
enable  him  to  go  through  with  a  purchase  which  he  heard 
he  had  a  mind  to."  Whatever  truth  there  may  be  as  to 
the  amount  of  money  here  mentioned,  it  is  apparent  that 
Southampton  evidenced  his  bounty  to  Shakespeare  in  1 594 
in  some  substantial  manner,  which  quickly  became  noised 
abroad  among  the  poets  and  writers  who  sought  patronage. 
Several  of  these  poets  in  approaching  Southampton  refer 
inferentially  to  his  munificence  to  Shakespeare.  In  1594 
Barnabe  Barnes  writes : 

"  Vouchsafe  right  virtuous  Lord  with  gracious  eyes 
Those  heavenly  lamps  which  give  the  muses  light 
To  view  my  muse  with  your  judicial  sight,"  etc. 

The  words  italicised  evidently  refer  to  Southampton's 
acceptance  of  Venus  and  Adonis  in  the  preceding  year. 


128    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

Later  in  1594,  Thomas  Nashe  dedicated  The  Life  of  Jack 
Wilton  to  Southampton,  and  in  a  dedicatory  Sonnet  to  a 
poem  preserved  in  the  Rawlinson  MS.  in  the  Bodleian 
Library,  entitled  The  Choice  of  Valentines,  Nashe  apologises 
for  the  salacious  nature  of  the  poem,  and  in  an  appended 
Sonnet  evidently  refers  to  Shakespeare's  Venus  and  Adonis 
in  the  line  italicised  below : 

"  Thus  hath  my  pen  presumed  to  please  my  friend, 
Oh  might'st  thou  likewise  please  Apollo's  eye; 
No,  honor  brooks  no  such  impietie, 
Yet  Ovids  Wanton  Muse  did  not  offend, 
He  is  the  fountain  whence  my  streams  do  flow, 
Forgive  me  if  I  speak  as  I  were  taught." 

In  1595  Gervase  Markham,  in  a  Sonnet  prefixed  to  his 
poem  on  Richard  Grenville's  fight  in  the  Revenge,  addresses 
Southampton  as : 

"  Thou  glorious  laurel  of  the  Muses'  hill, 

Whose  eyes  doth  crown  the  most  victorious  pen, 
Bright  lamp  of  virtue,  in  whose  sacred  skill 
Lives  all  the  bliss  of  ear-enchanting  men." 

The  line  italicised  not  only  refers  to  Shakespeare  but 
gives  evidence  also  of  the  assured  standing  among  poets 
which  he  had  now  attained  in  unbiased  judgments. 

In  addition  to  these  evidences  of  Southampton's  bounty 
to  Shakespeare  at  this  time,  we  have  the  poet's  own 
acknowledgment  of  the  recent  receipt  of  a  valuable  gift  in 
the  Lucrece  dedication  :  "  The  warrant  I  Jiave  of  your  honour- 
able disposition^  not  the  worth  of  my  untutored  linesy  makes  it 
assured  of  acceptance" 

In  his  Hymns  to  the  Shadow  of  Night  (1594)  and  its 
dedication,  Chapman  complains  of  his  lack  of  patronage 
and  refers  to  what  he  designates  as  Shakespeare's  "idol- 


THE   SCHOLARS  129 

atrous  plaits  for  riches"^  In  the  body  of  the  poem  he 
writes : 

"Wealth  fawns  on  fools;  virtues  are  meat  for  vices, 
Wisdom  conforms  herself  to  all  earth's  guises, 
Good  gifts  are  often  given  to  men  past  good 
And  noblesse  stoops  sometimes  beneath  his  blood" 

In  view  of  the  general  knowledge  of  Southampton's  bounty 
to  Shakespeare  at  this  time,  and  of  the  anti-Shakespearean 
intention  which  I  have  demonstrated  in  Chapman's  poem,  it 
is  apparent  that  these  lines  refer  to  the  nobleman's  gift  as 
well  as  to  the  intimacy  between  the  peer  and  the  player  at 
this  period. 

In  this  same  year  (1594)  the  scholars  devised  a  plan  to 
disrupt  the  intimacy  between  Shakespeare  and  Southampton 
by  producing  and  publishing  a  scandalous  poem  satirising 
their  relations,  entitled  Willobie  his  Avisa,  or  the  true  picture 
of  a  modest  maid  and  a  chaste  and  constant  wife,  I  n  this  poem 
Henry  Wriothesley,  Earl  of  Southampton,  is  represented  as 
"  Henry  Willobie  a  young  man  and  a  scholar  of  very  good 
hope,"  while  Shakespeare  is  indicated  as  "  W.  S.,"  an  "  old 
actor."  "  W.  S."  is  depicted  as  aiding  and  abetting  Henry 
Willobie  in  a  love  affair  with  Avisa,  the  wife  of  an  Oxford 
tavern  keeper  who  conducts  a  tavern  described  as  follows : 

"  See  yonder  house  where  hangs  the  badge 
Of  England's  saint  when  captains  cry 
Victorious  land  to  conquering  rage." 

In  this  poem  Henry  Willobie  is  alleged  to  have  fallen  in 
love  with  Avisa  at  first  sight,  and  to  have  confided  in  his 
friend  "  W.  S.,"  "  who  not  long  before  had  tryed  the  courtesy 
of  the  like  passion  and  was  now  newly  recovered  of  the  like 
infection."  Willobie  his  Avisa  in  some  measure  reproduces 
but  at  the  same  time  grossly  distorts  actual  facts  in  the  lives 

1  A  probable  allusion  to  his  Lucrece  dedication. 
9 


130    SHAKESPEARE'S  LOST  YEARS 

of  Shakespeare  and  Southampton  which  are  dimly  adum- 
brated in  Sonnets  written  by  Shakespeare  to  Southampton 
and  to  the  Dark  Lady  at  this  time.  I  have  elsewhere 
demonstrated  Matthew  Roydon's  authorship  as  well  as  the 
anti-Shakespearean  intention  of  this  poem. 

In  1595  George  Chapman  published  his  OvicFs  Banquet 
of  Sense  and  his  A  Coronet  for  his  Mistress  Philosophy, 
in  both  of  which  poems,  as  well  as  in  the  dedications, 
he  again  indicates  and  attacks  Shakespeare.  Shakespeare's 
cognizance  of  Chapman's  intention,  as  well  as  the  manner 
in  which  he  answered  him,  have  been  examined  in  detail 
in  a  previous  essay  which  is  now  generally  accepted  by 
authoritative  critics  as  definitely  establishing  the  fact  of 
Chapman's  ingrained  hostility  to  Shakespeare  as  well  as  his 
identity  as  the  rival  poet  of  the  Sonnets.1 

Thus  we  find  that,  beginning  with  the  reflections  of 
Nashe  and  Greene  in  1589,  Shakespeare  was  defamed  and 
abused  by  some  one  or  more  of  this  coterie  of  jealous 
scholars  in  every  year  down  to  1595,  and  that  the  rancour 
of  his  detractors  intensifies  with  the  growth  of  his  social 
and  literary  prestige. 

The  one  thing  of  all  others  that  served  most  to  feed  and 
perpetuate  the  envy  of  the  scholars  against  Shakespeare  was 
the  friendship  and  patronage  accorded  him  by  the  Earl  of 
Southampton. 

Past  biographers  and  critics  usually  date  the  beginning 
of  the  acquaintance  between  Shakespeare  and  Southampton 
in  1593,  when  Venus  and  Adonis  was  published.  In  a  later 
chapter  I  shall  advance  new  evidence  to  show  that  their 
acquaintance  had  its  inception  nearly  two  years  before  that 

date. 

1  Shakespeare  and  the  Rival  Poet ',  John  Lane,  London,  1903. 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE  POLITICAL  PURPOSE   OF 
KING  JOHN 

1591-1592 

THE  three  parts  of  Henry  VL  and  their  originals 
are  of  interest  to  Shakespearean  students  as 
marking  the  beginning  of  a  phase  of  English 
historical  drama,  afterwards  developed  by  Shakespeare, 
Kyd,  Marlowe,  and  others.  They  owed  their  origin  to  the 
demand  of  the  theatres  for  material  with  which  to  cater  to 
the  ebullient  national  spirit  aroused  by  the  long-threatened 
danger  of  a  Spanish  invasion,  and  its  happy  issue  in  the 
destruction  of  the  great  Armada,  in  1588.  They  were 
originally  produced  between  1589  and  1591,  and  evidently 
for  the  Queen's  players.  The  theatrical  managers  having 
found  them  a  profitable  investment,  encouraged  the  con- 
tinued production  of  historical  plays.  Peele,  who  is  usually 
supposed  to  have  been  the  author  of  The  First  Part  of  Henry 
VL,  soon  after  wrote  a  play  upon  the  reign  of  Edward  I. ; 
Marlowe  appropriating  Edward  III.  and  later  on  Edward  II. ; 
and  Shakespeare  King  John  in  1591  and  Richard  II.  in 
1592-93. 

Shakespeare,  before    composing  Richard   //., — in    the 
composition   of   which  he  was    evidently   guided   by   the 


132    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

previous  production  of  Marlowe's  Edward  //., — tried  his 
"  prentice  hand "  on  King  John.  Both  this  play  and  the 
older  play  of  The  Troublesome  Raigne  of  King  John  (upon 
which  it  is  based,  and  which,  in  fact,  it  practically  recasts) 
owe  their  origin  to  the  same  influences  as  the  other  historical 
plays  mentioned.  The  Troublesome  Raigne  of  King  John 
was  composed  for  the  Queen's  company  at,  or  near  to,  the 
date  of  the  Spanish  Armada,  and  at  a  period  when  religious 
animosities  were  acute.  Its  anti- Catholic  spirit  is  very 
aggressive.  We  have  good  evidence,  in  the  manner  in  which 
Shakespeare,  on  recasting  the  old  play,  toned  down  or 
eliminated  this  spirit,  that  whatever  dogmatic  latitude  he 
allowed  himself  in  religion,  his  social  and  religious  sympathies 
at  this  period  were  Catholic  rather  than  Protestant.  He 
was,  withal,  in  common  with  a  large  proportion,  and  prob- 
ably a  majority,  of  his  compatriots  at  that  time,  an  English, 
as  distinguished  from  a  Roman,  Catholic,  and  like  them, 
though  he  outwardly  acquiesced  in  the  established  religion, 
tacitly  favoured  the  old  Church  in  spiritual  matters,  while 
resenting  its  political  activities. 

Socially  and  politically,  Shakespeare  was  essentially 
conservative.  He  looked  naturally  unto  the  rock  whence 
he  was  hewn  and  to  the  hole  of  the  pit  whence  he  was 
digged.  With  a  deep  and  abiding  pride  of  race,  linking 
him  spiritually  with  the  historic  past  of  his  people,  he  was 
inclined  to  look  askance  at  the  subverting  spirit  of  Puritan- 
ism, which  was  now  beginning  to  give  Merrie  England 
food  for  serious  thought.  His  temperamental  bias  against 
Puritanism  was  accentuated  by  the  openly  avowed  hostility 
of  the  Puritans  to  his  chosen  profession.  Though  born 
of  the  people,  Shakespeare's  social  ideals  were  strongly 
aristocratic,  and,  while  possessing,  in  an  unusual  degree 


THE  PURPOSE   OF  KING  JOHN     133 

that  unerring  knowledge  of  human  nature  in  all  classes  and 
conditions  of  men,  and  broad  tolerance  of  human  foibles 
and  weaknesses,  attainable  only  by  spiritual  sympathy,  in 
the  political  wisdom  of  democracy  as  it  could  then  be 
conceived  he  had  little  confidence. 

We  have  good  evidence  that  Shakespeare's  father  was 
a  Catholic,  and  it  is  more  than  likely  that  Shakespeare's 
sympathies  were  Catholic.  His  most  intimate  affiliations 
were  Catholic.  Southampton's  family,  the  Wriothesleys, 
and  his  mother's  family,  the  Browns,  were  adherents  of  the 
old  faith,  and  though  Southampton,  in  later  life,  turned  to 
Protestantism  he  was  Catholic  during  the  early  years  of  his 
intimacy  with  Shakespeare.  For  the  clergy  of  the  Established 
Church  Shakespeare  had  little  respect ;  he  probably  regarded 
the  majority  of  them  as  trimmers  and  time-servers.  He 
always  makes  his  curates  ridiculous;  this,  however,  was 
probably  due  to  his  hostility  to  Roydon,  whom  he 
caricatures.  On  the  other  hand,  his  priests  and  friars,  while 
erring  and  human,  are  always  dignified  and  reverend  figures. 
There  is,  however,  no  indecision  in  his  attitude  towards 
Rome's  political  pretensions.  The  most  uncompromising 
Protestant  of  the  time  sounds  no  more  defiant  national  note 
than  he. 

In  King  John  we  have  an  ingenuous  revelation  of 
Shakespeare's  outlook  on  life  while  he  was  still  comparatively 
young,  and  within  a  few  years  of  his  advent  in  London. 
He  was  yet  unacquainted  with  the  Earl  of  Southampton  at 
the  date  of  its  composition,  early  in  1591. 

In  the  character  of  Falconbridge,  with  which  one 
instinctively  feels  its  creator's  sympathy,  I  am  convinced 
that  Shakespeare  portrayed  the  personality  of  Sir  John 
Perrot,  an  illegitimate  son  of  Henry  VIII.,  and  half-brother 


134    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST  YEARS 

to  Queen  Elizabeth.  The  immense  physical  proportions  of 
both  Perrot  and  Falconbridge ;  their  characteristic  and 
temperamental  resemblances;  their  common  illegitimate 
birth ;  the  fact  that  both  were  trusted  generals  and  relatives 
of  their  sovereigns  ;  their  similar  bluff  and  masterful  manner  ; 
their  freedom  of  speech  ;  and  the  suggestive  unison  between 
important  incidents  in  their  lives,  all  exhibit  a  resemblance 
much  too  remarkable  for  mere  coincidence. 

In  the  development  of  certain  of  Shakespeare's  characters 
we  instinctively  feel  his  sympathy  with,  or  antipathy  for,  the 
type  he  represents.  Like  Thackeray  in  the  case  of  Barry 
Lyndon,  he  paints  in  Falstaff  a  rascal  so  interesting  that  he 
leads  us  almost  to  condone  his  rascality ;  yet  who  can  doubt 
in  either  instance  the  author's  inherent  antipathy  to  the 
basic  character  he  portrays.  On  the  other  hand,  in  depict- 
ing Biron,  Antonio,  and  Jacques,  we  feel  a  sympathetic 
touch.  For  no  one  of  his  numerous  characters  is  his 
admiration  so  apparent  and  unreserved  as  for  that  of  Falcon- 
bridge.  With  other  characters,  such  as  Biron,  Antonio, 
Jacques,  Hamlet,  and  Prospero  in  their  successive  stages, 
we  apprehend  a  closer  mental  likeness  to,  and  spiritual 
synthesis  of,  their  creator ;  here,  however,  is  no  creature  of 
the  brain,  but  a  flesh-and-blood  man  of  action,  taken  bodily 
from  life.  An  early  date  for  the  original  composition  of 
King  John  is  manifest  in  the  broad  strokes  of  portraiture, 
and  lack  of  introspective  subtlety,  with  which  this  character 
is  drawn. 

Sir  John  Perrot  was  a  natural  son  of  Henry  VIII.  and 
Mary  Berkley,  afterwards  wife  of  Thomas  Perrot  of  Islington 
and  Herrodston  in  Pembrokeshire.  His  resemblance  to 
Henry  vill.  was  striking,  although  his  physical  proportions 
were  still  larger.  Much  as  he  resembled  his  father  he  more 


THE   PURPOSE   OF  KING  JOHN    135 

nearly  approximated  in  type  both  temperamentally  and 
physically  to  "  Cceur-de-lion."  Perrot  lived  about  two 
hundred  years  too  late  for  his  own  fame.  Had  he  been 
born  a  couple  of  centuries  earlier  he  might  have  lived  in 
history  as  a  paladin  of  romance.  He  was  a  fantastical 
recrudescence,  of  the  most  fanciful  age  of  chivalry.  He  is 
reported  to  have  possessed  extraordinary  strength,  and  in 
his  youth  to  have  been  much  addicted  to  brawling.  At 
about  the  age  of  twenty  he  owed  his  introduction  to 
Henry  VIII.  to  a  fight  in  which  he  became  engaged  with 
two  of  the  Yeomen  of  the  Guard  who  endeavoured  to  oust 
him  from  the  palace  grounds,  and  whom  he  worsted  in  the 
effort.  The  King  appearing  upon  the  scene,  Perrot  is 
reported  to  have  proclaimed  himself  his  son.  Henry 
received  him  favourably  and  promised  him  preferment,  but 
died  soon  afterwards.  Edward  VI.,  upon  his  accession, 
acknowledged  his  kinship  and  created  him  Knight  of  the 
Bath.  He  was  a  very  skilful  horseman  and  swordsman, 
and  excelled  in  knightly  exercises. 

In  1551  he  accompanied  the  Marquis  of  Southampton 
to  France  upon  the  mission  of  the  latter  to  negotiate  a 
marriage  between  Edward  VI.  and  Elizabeth,  daughter  of 
Henry  II.  The  French  King  was  so  well  pleased  with  him 
that  he  offered  to  retain  him  in  his  service.  While  generous 
and  brave  to  an  unusual  degree,  Perrot  was  extremely  hot- 
tempered  and  of  an  arbitrary  disposition.  He  seems  to 
have  inherited  all  of  his  father's  mental,  moral,  and  physical 
attributes  in  an  exaggerated  form,  and  to  have  had  an  ever- 
present  consciousness  of  his  kingly  lineage.  Money  flowed 
through  his  fingers  like  water;  he  was  rarely  out  of  debt, 
and  was  relieved  in  this  respect  by  both  Edward  VI.  and 
Elizabeth.  Upon  the  accession  of  Queen  Mary,  Perrot, 


136    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST    YEARS 

though  a  Protestant,  continued  in  royal  favour ;  his  kinship 
outweighing  his  religious  disadvantage.  He  was,  however, 
never  without  enemies  at  Court,  created  largely  by  his  high- 
handed behaviour.  During  Mary's  reign  he  was  accused  of 
sheltering  heretics  in  his  house  in  Wales,  and  was,  in  conse- 
quence, committed  for  a  while  to  the  Fleet,  but  was  soon 
released.  He  saw  service  in  France  under  the  Earl  of 
Pembroke,  being  present  at  the  capture  of  St.  Quentin. 
Later  on  he  had  a  violent  disagreement  with  his  old  com- 
mander, owing  to  his  refusal  to  assist  the  latter  in  perse- 
cuting Welsh  Protestants.  A  life-enduring  friendship  was 
later  established  between  them  by  Pembroke's  magnanimity 
in  rallying  to  his  support  at  a  crucial  period  in  his  career. 
When  Protestantism,  at  a  later  period,  gained  the  upper 
hand  under  Elizabeth,  he  was  equally  averse  to  the  persecu- 
tion of  Catholics.  Elizabeth  upon  her  accession  continued 
the  favours  shown  him  by  her  predecessors.  He  was 
selected  as  one  of  four  gentlemen  to  carry  the  canopy  of 
state  at  her  Coronation,  and  was  appointed  Vice-Admiral 
of  the  seas  about  South  Wales.  In  1570  he  was  made 
President  of  Munster,  where  he  performed  his  duties  in  an 
extremely  strenuous  manner.  He  used  deputies  only  in 
clerical  matters;  where  there  was  fighting  to  be  done  he 
was  there  in  person,  and  usually  in  the  thick  of  it.  Much 
as  he  liked  to  command  he  never  could  resist  being  in  the 
actual  scrimmage.  He  challenged  James  Fitmaurice  Fitz- 
gerald, the  rebel  leader  in  Munster,  to  single  combat,  which 
the  latter  prudently  refused ;  later  on,  Fitzgerald  led  him 
and  a  small  body  of  men  into  an  ambush  where  he  was  out- 
numbered ten  to  one;  Perrot  refused  to  surrender,  and 
though  he  made  great  slaughter  of  his  assailants,  was  saved 
only  by  the  timely  arrival  of  a  small  body  of  his  own  men, 


THE   PURPOSE   OF   KING  JOHN     137 

whom  the  rebels  supposed  to  be  the  advance  guard  of  .a 
stronger  force.  He  was  as  generous  in  victory  as  he  was 
imprudent  in  action ;  having  defeated  and  captured  Fitz- 
gerald, he  forgave  him  and  restored  him  to  his  property. 
Such  actions  on  his  part  being  criticised  by  the  Council, 
Perrot,  in  dudgeon,  resigned  his  command  and  returned  to 
England  in  1573.  He  was  received  favourably  by  Elizabeth, 
whose  goodwill  he  still  continued  to  keep  in  spite  of  his 
numerous  enemies  at  Court.  Retiring  to  his  Welsh  estates 
at  this  time,  he  told  Burghley  that  he  intended  thereafter  to 
lead  a  "countryman's  life,"  and  "to  keep  out  of  debt." 
Much  of  his  time  during  the  following  ten  years  was  spent 
in  suppressing  piracy  on  the  seas  in  his  capacity  of  Vice- 
Admiral  and  Warden  of  the  Marches.  In  1584  he  was 
appointed  Viceroy  of  Ireland,  an  office  which  he  executed 
vigorously  and  effectively,  but  in  the  same  dominating  spirit 
and  with  the  same  impatience  of  control  that  had  marked 
his  earlier  Irish  career.  Exasperated  at  the  delays  of  the 
Council  in  agreeing  to  his  plans,  he  even  went  to  the  length 
of  addressing  the  English  Parliament  in  a  letter,  which, 
however,  was  suppressed  by  Walsingham,  who  apprehended 
the  resentment  of  Elizabeth  at  such  an  unwarranted  appro- 
priation of  her  prerogative. 

While  Perrot's  physical  proportions  were  much  above 
the  average  he  was  an  extremely  graceful  and  handsome 
man.  A  German  nobleman  of  the  time,  visiting  Ireland, 
seeing  Perrot  at  the  opening  of  Parliament,  declared  that 
though  he  had  travelled  all  Europe  he  had  never  seen 
any  one  comparable  to  him  for  his  port  and  majesty  of 
personage. 

Perrot's  arbitrary  and  dominating  manner  created  con- 
stant friction  in  his  Council  and  aroused  the  enmity  of  his 


138    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

coadjutors   and  subordinates.     He  challenged  Sir  Richard 
Bingham,  President   of  Munster,  to  a  duel,  and   came  to 
actual   blows    in   the   council   chamber   with   Sir   Nicholas 
Bagenal.     He  aroused  the  deadly  enmity  of  Loftus,  Arch- 
bishop of  Dublin,  who  set  many  plots  on  foot  to  work  his 
undoing.     One    Philip    Williams,    a    former    secretary    of 
Perrot's,  was  set  on  by  Loftus  to  make  revelations  reflecting 
on  Perrot's  loyalty,  which  gained  such  credence  that  they 
resulted  in  his  recall  to  England  in  1588.     He  left  behind 
him,  writes  Sir  Henry  Wallop,  "a  memory  of  such  hard 
usage  and  haughty  demeanour  amongst  his  associates  as  I 
think  never  any  before  him  in  this  place  hath  done."     After 
Perrot's  return  to  England,  Loftus  continued  his  machina- 
tions against  him.     Informers  of  all  kinds  were  forthcoming 
to  accuse  him.     One  Denis  O'Roughan,  an  ex -priest,  offered 
to  prove  that  he  was  the  bearer  of  a  letter  from  Perrot  to 
Philip  of  Spain,  promising  that  if  the  latter  would  give  him 
the  Principality  of  Wales,  he  would  make   him  Master  of 
England  and  Ireland.     While  this   evidence  was  palpably 
false,  the  excited  condition  of  public  feeling  in  regard   to 
the  Jesuit  plots   and  the  aggressive  plans  of  Spain  lent  it 
credence.     A  year  before,  Sir  William  Stanley,  previously 
quite  unsuspected  of  disloyalty,  had  turned  the  fortress  of 
Deventer  over  to  the  Spaniards,  and  the  Armada,  which  had 
been  in  preparation   for  years,  was  expected  daily  on  the 
English  coasts.     Perrot,  while  not  yet  placed  under  arrest, 
was  treated  coldly  by  the  Court.     His  was  not  a  temper  that 
could   stand   such   treatment   uncomplainingly.      Knowing 
that  the  Queen's  ill-usage  of  him  arose  largely  from   the 
influence  of  Sir  Christopher   Hatton,  he  expressed  himself 
somewhat  freely  regarding  that  gentleman,  and  in  a  manner 
that  reflected  upon  the  Queen.     Hatton's  hatred  of  Perrot 


THE  PURPOSE   OF  KING  JOHN    139 

was  well  founded,  he  having  seduced  Hatton's  niece  some 
years  before.  The  unceasing  plotting  of  Perrot's  enemies 
and  his  own  imprudence  of  speech  led  to  his  arrest  early  in 
1591.  After  a  short  confinement  in  Burghley's  house,  he 
was  removed  to  the  Tower,  where  he  remained  for  a  year 
before  he  was  brought  to  trial.  At  this  period  and  while 
still  under  restraint  at  Burghley's  house,  I  date  the  composi- 
tion of  Shakespeare's  King  John.  He  was  tried  for  high 
treason  in  April  1 592,  being  charged  with  using  contempt- 
uous words  about  the  Queen,  relieving  known  traitors  and 
Romish  priests,  and  also  with  treasonable  correspondence 
with  Philip  of  Spain  and  the  Duke  of  Parma.  All  of  the 
evidence  against  him,  except  that  relating  to  the  use  of 
disrespectful  expressions  regarding  the  Queen,  fell  to  the 
ground.  He  was  found  guilty  on  this  one  point  and  taken 
back  to  the  Tower.  Two  months  later — that  is,  on  26th 
June — he  was  brought  up  for  judgment  and  condemned  to 
death.  "  God's  death,"  he  exclaimed,  on  being  led  back  to 
the  Tower,  "  will  the  Queen  suffer  her  brother  to  be  offered 
up  as  a  sacrifice  to  the  envy  of  his  frisking  adversary?" 
He  died  a  natural  death  in  the  Tower  in  September  1592. 
It  is  probable  that  had  he  lived  the  Queen  would  have 
pardoned  him.  It  was  rumoured  at  the  time  that  she 
intended  to  do  so.  While  such  an  intention  appears  prob- 
able from  the  fact  that  after  his  death  his  son  was  restored 
to  his  estates,  it  is  more  likely  that  Perrot's  death,  while 
under  the  Queen's  disfavour,  softened  her  resentment 
toward  his  family.  Perrot's  son,  Sir  Thomas,  who  inherited 
his  estates,  had  incurred  the  ill-will  of  Elizabeth  some  years 
before  by  his  clandestine  marriage  to  Dorothy  Devereux, 
sister  of  the  Earl  of  Essex.  She  vented  her  displeasure 
upon  every  one  remotely  concerned  in  this  transaction. 


140    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST  YEARS 

Essex,  who  was  entirely  innocent  of  any  complicity  in  it, 
was  frowned  upon  for  a  time,  and  Bishop  Aylmer,  under 
whose  surreptitiously  obtained  licence  the  marriage  ceremony 
was  performed,  was  called  before  the  Council.  The  Queen 
for  years  declined  to  receive  Lady  Perrot,  and  upon  one 
occasion,  when  visiting  the  Earl  of  Essex,  refused  to  remain 
in  his  house  upon  the  arrival  of  his  sister,  and  was  pacified 
only  when  Lady  Perrot  removed  to  a  distant  neighbour's. 

It  thus  appears  that  the  rancour  of  Elizabeth  towards 
Sir  John  Perrot,  which  led  to  his  imprisonment  in  1591 
and  his  later  prosecution,  was  intensified  by  the  fact  of  his 
family  connection  with  the  Earl  of  Essex,  who  at  this  same 
period  was  deep  in  her  disfavour  owing  to  his  own  un- 
authorised marriage  to  Lady  Sidney.  We  may  then  infer 
that  Court  circles  were  divided  in  their  attitude  towards 
Perrot,  and  that  while  Sir  Christopher  Hatton  and  his 
followers  were  antagonistic  to  him,  that  Essex  and  his 
faction  were  correspondingly  sympathetic. 

I  am  convinced  that  Shakespeare's  first  recast  of  The 
Troublesome  Raigne  of  King  John  was  made  at  about  this 
period,  at  the  instigation  of  a  court  of  action  friendly  to 
Perrot  and  antagonistic  to  Hatton,  with  the  intention  of 
arousing  sympathy  for  Perrot  by  presenting  him  inferentially 
in  heroic  colours  in  the  character  of  Falconbridge.  Whatever 
animosities  his  outspoken  criticisms  and  arbitrary  demeanour 
may  have  aroused,  amongst  the  courtiers  and  politicians, 
it  is  likely  that  his  romantic  history,  his  personal  bravery, 
and  his  interesting  personality  had  made  him  a  hero  to 
the  younger  nobility  and  the  masses.  It  is  evident  that 
the  author  of  The  Troublesome  Raigne  of  King  John  had 
Perrot  in  mind  in  the  composition  of  that  play,  which  is 
usually  dated  by  the  text  critics  in  about  1588-89.  It  is 


THE   PURPOSE   OF   KING  JOHN     141 

acknowledged  that  the  old  play  is  based  almost  entirely 
upon  the  second  edition  of  Holinshed's  Chronicles,  which 
was  published  in  1587,  and  that  the  Falconbridge  incident 
has  no  foundation  in  that  source,  it  being  transposed  from 
a  portion  of  Hall's  Chronicles  relating  to  French  history 
of  an  earlier  time.  If  the  original  author's  intention  had 
been  to  dramatise  the  reign  or  character  of  King  John,  why 
should  he  have  transposed  incidents  and  characters  from 
French  history  in  no  way  connected  with  John's  reign,  and 
also  have  made  one  of  these  characters  practically  the 
protagonist  of  the  action?  Bearing  this  fact  in  mind,  in 
conjunction  with  the  evident  date  of  composition  of  the 
old  play  in  or  about  1588-89,  at  the  time  when  Perrot  was 
recalled  from  Ireland  and  was  being  accused  of  disloyalty 
by  his  political  enemies,  it  appears  evident  that  the  author, 
or  authors,  of  The  Troublesome  Raigne  had  Perrot's  interests 
in  mind  in  its  composition,  and  that  its  intention  and 
personal  point  were  recognised  by  the  public  upon  its 
presentation,  and  also  that  it  was  published  and  rewritten 
in  1591,  at  the  time  when  Perrot  was  sent  to  the  Tower, 
in  order  further  to  stir  up  sympathy  for  his  cause  by  a 
still  more  palpable  and  heroic  characterisation. 

In  recasting  the  old  play  in  1591  at  the  most  crucial 
period  of  Perrot's  troubles,  Shakespeare — evidently  cognizant 
of  its  original  intention  and  of  the  interpretation  placed 
upon  it  by  the  theatre-going  public — still  further  enhanced 
the  character  of  Falconbridge  as  the  protagonist  of  the 
drama,  while  he  minimised  the  character  of  King  John  and 
quite  neglected  to  explain  the  reason  for  much  of  the  plot 
and  action,  which  is  quite  clear  in  the  old  play.  The 
neglect  of  historical  and  dramatic  values,  and  the  absence 
of  analytical  characterisation  shown  by  Shakespeare  in  this 


142    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

play  when  it  is  considered  as  a  dramatisation  of  the  reign 
of  King  John,  has  been  noticed  by  many  past  critics,  who 
have  not  suspected  the  possibility  of  an  underlying  intention 
in  its  production.  Mr.  Edward  Rose,  in  his  excellent  essay 
upon  Shakespeare  as  an  adapter,  writes : 

"  Shakespeare  has  no  doubt  kept  so  closely  to  the  lines 
of  the  older  play  because  it  was  a  favorite  with  his  audience 
and  they  had  grown  to  accept  its  history  as  absolute  fact ; 
but  one  can  hardly  help  thinking  that,  had  he  boldly  thrown 
aside  these  trammels  and  taken  John  as  his  Hero,  his  great 
central  figure ;  had  he  analyzed  and  built  up  before  us  the 
mass  of  power,  craft,  passion,  and  devilry  which  made  up 
the  worst  of  the  Plantagenets ;  had  he  dramatized  the  grand 
scene  of  the  signing  of  the  Charter  and  shown  vividly  the 
gloom  and  horror  which  overhung  the  excommunicated 
land ;  had  he  painted  John's  last  despairing  struggles  against 
rebels  and  invaders  as  he  has  given  us  the  fiery  end  of 
Macbeth's  life,  we  might  have  had  another  Macbeth,  another 
Richard,  who  would  by  his  terrible  personality  have  welded 
the  play  together  and  carried  us  breathless  through  his 
scene  of  successive  victory  and  defeat.  That,  by  this  means, 
something  would  be  lost,  'tis  true — Falconbridge,  for  example, 
would  certainly  be  lesser,"  etc.  etc. 

While  regretting  Shakespeare's  neglect  of  the  great 
dramatic  possibilities  in  the  reign  and  the  character  of 
King  John,  Mr.  Rose  recognised  Shakespeare's  evident 
interest  in  the  character  of  Falconbridge.  He  writes : 

"  In  reconstructing  the  play  the  great  want  that  struck 
Shakespeare  seems  to  have  been  that  of  a  strong  central 
figure.  He  was  attracted  by  the  rough,  powerful  nature 
which  he  could  see  the  Bastard  must  have  been;  almost 
like  a  modern  dramatist  writing  up  a  part  for  a  star  actor, 
he  introduced  Falconbridge  wherever  it  was  possible,  gave 


THE  PURPOSE   OF  KING  JOHN    143 

him  the  end  of  every  act  (except  the  third),  and  created 
from  a  rude  and  inconsistent  sketch  a  character  as  strong 
as  complete  and  as  original  as  even  he  ever  drew.  Through- 
out a  series  of  scenes  not  otherwise  very  closely  connected, 
this  wonderful  real  type  of  faulty  combative,  not  ignoble 
manhood,  is  developed,  a  support  and  addition  to  the  scenes 
in  which  he  has  least  to  say,  a  great  power  where  he  is 
prominent." 

Had  Mr.  Rose  endeavoured  briefly  to  describe  the 
character  of  Sir  John  Perrot,  he  could  not  have  done  so 
more  aptly. 

Shakespeare  in  recasting  The  Troublesome  Raigne  of 
King  John  did  not  endeavour  to  dramatise  either  the 
character  or  reign  of  that  King,  but  purposely  followed  the 
story  of  the  earlier  dramatist,  having  the  same  personal 
point  in  view.  The  author  of  The  Troublesome  Raigne  of 
King  John  intentionally  subordinated  or  distorted  the  actual 
facts  of  history  in  order  to  match  his  dramatic  character- 
isation to  the  personality  of  Perrot,  and  its  action  to  well- 
known  incidents  of  Perrot's  career  in  France  and  England. 
A  palpable  instance  of  this  is  exhibited  in  Falconbridge's 
soliloquy  in  Scene  i.,  when  questioned  by  the  King  before 
the  Court  regarding  his  paternity.  Here  the  old  author 
reflects  a  story  of  Perrot's  youth  which  his  biographers 
state  was  frequently  related  by  Perrot  to  his  friends.  Soon 
after  the  accession  of  Edward  VI.,  Perrot  having  by  his 
extravagance  become  deeply  involved  in  debt  purposely 
placed  himself  in  the  path  of  the  King's  daily  walk  and, 
hearing  his  footsteps  and  pretending  not  to  know  of  his 
presence,  indulged  in  a  soliloquy  complaining  of  his  mis- 
fortunes and  lamenting  his  lack  of  wisdom  and  bemoaning 
the  nonage  of  his  half-brother  the  King,  who  in  endeavouring 


144    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST  YEARS 

to  help  him  would  probably  be  overruled  by  the  Lord 
Protector  and  the  Lords  of  the  Council.  He  also  debated 
aloud  with  himself  other  means  of  retrieving  his  fortune,  such 
as  retiring  from  the  Court  into  the  country  or  betaking  him- 
self to  the  wars.  His  anonymous  biographer  of  1592  wrote : 

"  As  he  was  thus  sadly  debating  the  Matter  unto  hym- 
selfe,  the  Kinge  came  behynd  hym,  and  overheard  most  of 
that  which  he  sayd,  who  at  length  stepped  before  him,  and 
asked  him,  How  now  Perrott  (quoth  the  Kinge)  what  is  the 
matter  that  you  make  this  great  Moane?  To  whom  Sir 
John  Perrott  answered,  And  it  lyke  your  Majestic,  I  did 
not  thinck  that  your  Highness  had  byn  there.  Yes,  said 
the  Kinge,  we  heard  you  well  inough :  And  have  you  spent 
your  Livinge  in  our  Service,  and  is  the  Kinge  so  younge, 
and  under  Government,  that  he  cannot  give  you  any  Thinge 
in  Recompence  of  your  Service  ?  Spie  out  somewhat,  and 
you  shall  see  whether  the  Kinge  hath  not  Power  to  bestow 
it  on  you.  Then  he  most  humbly  thanked  his  Majestic 
and  shortly  after  founde  out  a  Concealment,  which  as  soon 
as  he  sought,  the  Kinge  bestowed  it  on  hym,  wherewith  he 
paid  the  most  part  of  his  Debtes ;  and  for  always  after  he 
became  a  better  Husband.  This  story  Sir  John  Perrott 
would  sometimes  recounte  unto  his  Frends,  acknowledging 
it  a  greate  Blessinge  of  God,  that  had  given  him  Grace  in 
Time  to  look  into  his  decaying  Estate." 

Comparison  of  this  biographical  incident  with  the  follow- 
ing passage  from  The  Troublesome  Raigne  not  only  reveals 
the  source  of  the  dramatist's  inspiration  but  also  accounts 
for  a  scene  that  has  appeared  peculiar  to  many  critics. 

K.  JOHN.   Ask  Philip  whose  son  he  is. 

ESSEX.    Philip,  who  was  thy  father  ? 

PHILIP.    Mass,  my  lord,  and  that's  a  question  :  and  you  had  not  taken  some 

pains  with  her  before,  I  should  have  desired  you  to  ask  my  mother. 
K.  JOHN.    Say,  who  was  thy  father  ? 
PHILIP.    Faith,  my  lord,   to   answer  you  sure,  he   is  my  father  that  was 


THE  PURPOSE   OF  KING  JOHN    145 

nearest  my  mother  when  I  was  gotten;    and  him  I  think  to  be  Sir 
Robert  Falconbridge. 

K.  JOHN.   Essex,  for  fashion's  sake  demand  again  :  And  so  an  end  to  this 
contention. 

ROBERT.   Was  ever  man  thus  wrong'd  as  Robert  is  ? 

ESSEX.    Philip  !    Speak,  I  say  j  who  was  thy  father  ? 

K.  JOHN.   Young  man,  how  now  ?  what !  art  thou  in  a  trance  ? 

Q.  ELINOR.    Philip,  awake  !    The  man  is  in  a  dream. 

PHILIP.   Philippus,  atavis  edite  Regibus.     (Aside.) 
What  say'st  thou  :  Philip,  sprung  of  ancient  Kings  ? 
Quo  me  rapit  tempestas  ? 
What  wind  of  honour  blows  this  fury  forth, 
Or  whence  proceed  these  fumes  of  majesty  ? 
Methinks  I  hear  a  hollow  echo  sound, 
That  Philip  is  the  son  unto  a  King  : 
The  whistling  leaves  upon  the  trembling  trees 
Whistle  in  concert  I  am  Richard's  son  ; 
The  bubbling  murmur  of  the  water's  fall 
Records  Philippus  Regis  filius  ; 
Birds  in  their  flight  make  music  with  their  wings, 
Filling  the  air  with  glory  of  my  birth  ; 
Birds,  bubbles,  leaves  and  mountains,  echo,  all 
Ring  in  mine  ears,  that  I  am  Richard's  son. 
Fond  man,  ah,  whither  art  thou  carried  ? 
How  are  thy  thoughts  yrapt  in  Honour's  heaven  ? 
Forgetful  what  thou  art,  and  whence  thou  cam'st  ? 
Thy  father's  land  cannot  maintain  these  thoughts  ; 
These  thoughts  are  far  unfitting  Falconbridge  ; 
And  well  they  may  ;  for  why  this  mounting  mind 
Doth  soar  too  high  to  stoop  to  Falconbridge 
Why,  how  now  ?    Knowest  thou  where  thou  art  ? 
And  know'st  thou  who  expects  thine  answer  here  ? 
Wilt  thou,  upon  a  frantic  madding  vein, 
Go  lose  thy  land,  and  say  thyself  base-born  ? 
No,  keep  thy  land,  though  Richard  were  thy  sire  ; 
Whate'er  thou  think'st  say  thou  art  Falconbridge. 

K.  JOHN.    Speak,  man  !  be  sudden,  who  thy  father  was. 

PHILIP.    Please  it  your  Majesty,  Sir  Robert  .  .  . 
Philip,  that  Falconbridge  cleaves  to  thy  jaws  :  (Aside) 
It  will  not  out ;  I  cannot  for  my  life 
Say  I  am  son  unto  a  Falconbridge. 
Let  land  and  living  go  !  'tis  Honour's  fire 
That  makes  me  swear  King  Richard  was  my  sire. 
Base  to  a  King,  adds  title  of  more  state, 
Than  knight's  begotten,  though  legitimate. 
Please  it  your  Grace,  I  am  King  Richard's  son. 
10 


146    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

While  it  is  generally  agreed  by  text  critics  that  Shake- 
speare's King  John  was  drastically  revised  in  about  1596, 
the  metrical  tests  and  the  scarcity  of  classical  allusions 
denote  its  composition  at  about  the  same  period  as  that  of 
the  original  composition  of  Richard  II. ;  and  though  the 
later  time  revision  of  both  of  these  plays  has  no  doubt 
replaced  much  of  Shakespeare's  earlier  work  in  them  with 
matter  of  a  later  time,  an  early  date  for  their  original 
composition  is  very  evident.  I  therefore  assign  the  original 
composition  of  King  John  to  the  early  part  of  the  year  1591, 
and  believe,  that  in  writing  this  play  Shakespeare  worked 
from  a  copy  of  The  Troublesome  Raigne  of  King  John,  and 
that  he  followed,  and  still  further  developed,  the  original 
intention  of  that  play  regarding  the  interests  of  Sir  John 
Perrot.  It  is  evident  that  King-  John  was  written  at  the 
time  The  Troublesome  Raigne  was  published  in  1591,  and 
that  the  play  was  Burbage  property  when  it  was  published. 
A  play  was  not  as  a  rule  published  until  it  had  outrun  its 
interest  upon  the  stage,  or  had  been  replaced  by  a  new  play 
upon  the  same  subject. 

While  records  of  Henslowe's  affiliations  with  Lord 
Strange's  and  the  Admiral's  companies  do  not  appear  in  his 
Diary  until  February  1592,  when  the  Rose  Theatre  was 
ready  for  their  occupancy,  it  is  likely  that  their  connection 
commenced  in  the  previous  year  and  that  his  affiliations 
with  the  Queen's  company  ended  at  the  same  time.  The 
number  of  old  plays  formerly  owned  by  the  Queen's 
company  that  came  into  the  hands  of  Strange's,  the 
Admiral's,  and  Pembroke's  men  at  this  time  were  probably 
purchased  from  Henslowe,  upon  the  reorganisation  of  com- 
panies in  1591-92,  or  else  were  brought  to  these  companies 
as  properties  by  Queen's  men  who  joined  them  upon  the 


THE  PURPOSE   OF  KING  JOHN     147 

disruption  of  this  large  and  powerful  company  at  this  period. 
Gabriel  Spencer,  Humphrey  Jeffes,  and  John  Sinkler,  whose 
names  are  mentioned  in  The  True  Tragedy  of  the  Duke  of 
York,  were  evidently  old  Queen's  men,  the  former  two  joining 
Pembroke's  men,  and  Sinkler,  Strange's  men  at  this  time. 
The  entry  of  their  names  as  actors  in  this  play  was  evidently 
made  while  it  was  a  Queen's  property  and  when  the  Queen's 
company  acted  under  Henslowe's  auspices  at  the  Rose 
Theatre  between  1587  and  1591.  Both  Jeffes  and  Spencer 
rejoined  Henslowe  upon  the  new  reorganisation  of  companies 
in  1594,  and  continued  to  perform  with  him  and  the  Lord 
Admiral's  men  as  Pembroke's  men  until  1597,  when  they 
became  Admiral's  men.  After  Spencer  was  killed  in  a  duel 
by  Ben  Jonson  in  1 598,  his  widow  continued  to  be  a  prote*ge* 
or  pensioner  of  Henslowe's  for  some  years. 

The  generally  accepted  belief  that  the  old  Henry  VI., 
The  Contention,  and  The  True  Tragedie  were — like  The 
Troublesome  Raigne  of  King  John,  The  Seven  Deadly  Sins, 
and  other  plays  owned  by  companies  with  which  Burbage 
was  connected — originally  Queen's  plays,  is  responsible  for 
the  otherwise  unsupported  assumption  that  Burbage  was 
a  member  and  the  manager  of  the  Queen's  company  for 
several  years. 

As  the  disruption  of  the  old  Queen's  company  and  its 
reorganisation  into  a  smaller  company  under  the  two 
Buttons,  as  well  as  the  inception  of  Henslowe's  connection 
with  Strange's  men,  evidently  took  place  some  time  between 
the  Christmas  season  of  1590-91,  when  the  Queen's  company 
performed  four  times  at  Court  and  the  Admiral-Strange 
company  only  once,  and  the  Christmas  season  of  1591-92, 
when  Strange's  company  performed  six  times  and  the 
Queen's  only  once,  and  then  for  the  last  time  on  record, 


148    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST  YEARS 

it  is  evident  that  Pembroke's  company  was  formed  also 
in  this  year.  It  is  not  unlikely  then  that  Shakespeare's 
recast  of  The  Troublesome  Raigne  of  King  John  into 
King  John  was  made  at  the  instigation  of  the  Earl  of 
Pembroke  himself  at  the  time  of  Perrot's  arrest  in  1591.  As 
Pembroke's  father  was  a  lifelong  friend  of  Perrot's  it  fs 
extremely  probable  that  he  also  would  be  his  partisan  and 
well-wisher. 

In  every  poem  or  play  written  by  Shakespeare  from  the 
time  he  made  the  acquaintance  of  the  Earl  of  Southampton 
at  the  end  of  1591,  and  even  for  some  time  after  the  accession 
of  James  I.  in  1603,  I  find  some  reflection  of  his  interest  in 
that  nobleman  or  in  the  fortunes  of  the  Essex  party  with 
which  he  was  affiliated.  I  find  no  reflection  of  this  interest 
in  King  John  nor  in  The  Comedy  of  Errors^  except  in  a  few 
passages  which  palpably  pertain  to  a  period  of  revision  in 
the  former  play.  From  this  and  other  subjective  evidence 
already  advanced  I  date  the  composition  of  both  of  these 
plays  in  1591,  and  in  doing  so  conform  to  the  chronological 
conclusions  reached  by  authoritative  text  critics  whose  judg- 
ments have  been  formed  altogether  upon  textual  and  stylistic 
grounds. 

While  nearly  all  writers  upon  the  Elizabethan  drama 
recognise  the  topical,  political,  or  controversial  nature  of 
much  of  the  dramatic  representation  of  that  age,  it  is  usual 
to  deny  for  Shakespeare's  plays  any  such  topical  significance. 
This  attitude  of  the  critics  is  due  largely  to  neglect  or 
ignorance  of  contemporary  history,  and  also  to  the  lack  of  a 
proper  understanding  of  the  chronological  order  in  which 
the  plays  were  produced,  and  their  consequent  inability  to 
synchronise  the  characters  or  action  of  the  plays,  with 
circumstances  of  Shakespeare's  life,  or  with  matters  of  con- 


THE  PURPOSE  OF  KING  JOHN    149 

temporary  interest,  as  well  as  to  the  masterly  objective  skill 
by  which  he  disguised  his  intentions,  in  order  to  protect 
himself  and  his  company  from  the  stringent  statutes  then 
in  force,  prohibiting  the  presentation  of  matters  concerning 
Church  or  State  upon  the  stage. 


CHAPTER  VII 

THE  INCEPTION  OF  THE  FRIENDSHIP 
BETWEEN  SHAKESPEARE  AND  THE 
EARL  OF  SOUTHAMPTON 

1591-1594 

A  FEW  months  after  the  publication  of  Greene's  A 
Groatsworth  of  Wit^  Henry  Chettle  issued  a  book 
entitled  Kinde  Heartes  Dreame,  to  which  he  pre- 
faced an  apology  for  publishing  Greene's  attack  upon 
Shakespeare.  He  writes :  "  I  am  as  sorry  as  if  the  original 
fault  had  been  my  fault,  because  myselfe  have  scene  his 
demeanour  no  lesse  civill  than  he  exelent  in  the  qualitie  he 
professes,  besides  divers  of  worship  have  reported  his  up- 
rightnes  of  dealing,  which  argues  his  honesty,  and  his 
facetious  grace  in  writing  that  approoves  his  art."  When 
critically  examined,  these  references  to  Shakespeare  take  on 
a  somewhat  greater  biographical  value  than  has  usually  been 
claimed  for  them.  Agreeing  with  the  assumption  that 
Shakespeare  left  Stratford  between  1586  and  1587, — that  is, 
at  between  the  ages  of  twenty-two  and  twenty-three  years, — 
we  are  informed  by  these  allusions,  that  by  the  time  he  had 
reached  his  twenty-eighth  year  he  had  attained  such  social 
recognition  as  to  have  enlisted  in  his  behalf  the  active 
sympathies  of  "  divers  of  worship," — that  is,  men  of  assured 

150 


THE  EARL  OF  SOUTHAMPTON     151 

social  prestige  and  distinction, — whose  protest  against 
Greene's  attack  evidently  induced  Chettle's  amends. 
Chettle's  book  was  published  in  December  1592;  just  four 
months  later,  in  April  1593,  Venus  and  A donis  was  licensed 
for  publication,  and  shortly  afterwards  was  issued  with 
the  well-known  dedication  to  Henry  Wriothesley,  Earl  of 
Southampton.  It  is  reasonable  to  assume  that  this  poem 
and  its  dedication  had  been  submitted  in  MS.  to  Southampton 
and  held  some  time  previous  to  the  date  of  the  application 
for  licence  to  publish,  and  that  his  favour  was  well  assured 
before  the  poem  was  finally  let  go  to  press.  The  few  months 
intervening  between  Greene's  attack  and  Chettle's  apology, 
and  the  application  for  licence  to  publish,  may  then  easily 
be  bridged  by  the  reading  in  MS.  form  of  Venus  and  Adonis 
by  Southampton's  friends.  It  is  likely  also  that  Greene's 
public  attack  upon  Shakespeare  led  this  generous  and  high- 
spirited  nobleman  to  acquiesce  in  the  use  of  his  name  as 
sponsor  for  the  publication.  The  nearness  of  these  dates 
and  incidents  gives  us  good  grounds  for  believing  that  the 
Earl  of  Southampton  was  included  in  the  number  referred 
to  by  Chettle  as  u  divers  of  worship."  In  using  the  expres- 
sion "  the  qualitie  he  professes,"  Chettle  plainly  referred  to 
Shakespeare's  profession  as  an  actor-manager,  and  of  his 
excellence  in  this  respect  bears  his  own  record  :  "  myselfe," 
he  writes,  "  have  scene  his  demeanour  no  lesse  civill  than  he 
exelent  in  the  qualitie  he  professes."  Of  Shakespeare's 
literary  merits,  however,  he  expresses  no  personal  knowledge, 
but  tells  us  that  "  divers  of  worship  have  reported  his  up- 
rightnes  of  dealing,  which  argues  his  honesty,  and  his 
facetious  grace  in  writing  that  approoves  his  art."  Had 
Chettle  referred  to  any  of  Shakespeare's  known  dramatic 
work  he  could  have  passed  his  own  judgment,  as  in  fact  he 


152    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

does  upon  his  civility  as  manager  and  his  excellence  as  an 
actor.  Having  seen  Shakespeare  act  he  would  also,  no 
doubt,  have  heard  his  lines  declaimed  had  our  poet  at  that 
period  produced  upon  the  public  boards  any  of  his  original 
dramas.  The  term  "  facetious  grace  "  might  well  be  applied 
to  the  manner  and  matter  of  Shakespeare's  lighter  comedies 
had  any  of  them  been  publicly  acted,  but  would  be  somewhat 
inapt  if  applied  to  the  rather  stilted  staginess  of  his  early 
historical  work.  Much  argument  has  been  advanced  in 
various  attempts  to  prove  that  Shakespeare  produced  Love's 
Labour's  Lost,  The  Two  Gentlemen  of  Verona,  Romeo  and 
Juliet,  and  Midsummer  Nighfs  Dream  previous  to  the  year 
1591-92,  but  no  particle  of  evidence,  either  external  or 
internal,  has  yet  been  advanced  in  support  of  these  assump- 
tions ;  much,  however,  has  been  advanced  against  them.  If 
we  may  accept  Shakespeare's  own  subscribed  statement  as 
evidence,  and  that  evidence  is  truthful,  Venus  and  Adonis 
was  his  first  acknowledged  original  literary  effort.  In  the 
dedication  to  Southampton  he  distinctly  names  it  "  the  first 
heir  of  my  invention."  It  is  probable,  then,  that  the  "  facetious 
grace"  in  writing,  of  which  "divers  of  worship"  had  reported, 
referred  to  this  poem,  which  had  been  held  then  for  several 
months  (as  were  his  Sonnets  for  years)  in  MS.  "  among  his 
private  friends." 

At  the  time  that  Chettle  published  his  Kinde  Heartes 
Dreame  Shakespeare  had  already  produced  The  Comedy  of 
Errors  and  King  John,  and  had  evidently  had  a  hand  with 
Marlowe  in  the  revision  of  The  True  Tragedie  of  the  Duke 
of  York.  It  is  unlikely,  however,  that  Chettle  had  witnessed 
a  performance  of  The  Comedy  of  Errors,  which  was  produced 
primarily  for  private  presentation.  The  True  Tragedie  of 
the  Duke  of  York  and  The  Troublesome  Raigne  of  King  John 


THE   EARL   OF   SOUTHAMPTON     153 

were  both  old  plays  by  other  hands,  and  it  was  for  publishing 
Greene's  attack  upon  Shakespeare  for  his  share  in  the  revision 
of  the  former,  that  Chettle  now  apologised.  He  would 
therefore  not  regard  his  revision  of  The  Troublesome  Raigne, 
if  he  knew  of  it,  as  original  work.  It  is  evident,  then,  Shake- 
speare's "facetious  grace  in  writing,"  of  which  Chettle  had 
heard,  referred  either  to  Venus  and  Adonis,  or  The  Comedy 
of  Errors,  or  both,  neither  of  which  were  known  to  the 
public  at  this  time. 

Friendship  may  perhaps  be  too  strong  a  term  to  apply 
to  the  relations  that  subsisted  at  this  date  between 
Southampton  and  Shakespeare,  but  we  have  good  proof  in 
Chettle's  references  to  him  late  in  1592,  in  the  dedication  of 
Venus  and  Adonis  in  1593,  and  of  Lucrece  in  1594,  as  well 
as  the  first  book  of  Sonnets, — which  I  shall  later  show  belongs 
to  the  earlier  period  of  their  connection, — that  the  acquaint- 
ance between  these  two  men,  at  whatever  period  it  may  have 
commenced,  was  at  least  in  being  towards  the  end  of  the 
year  1592.  A  brief  outline  and  examination  of  the  recorded 
incidents  of  Southampton's  life  in  these  early  years  may 
throw  some  new  light  upon  the  earliest  stage  of  this 
acquaintance,  especially  when  those  incidents  and  conditions 
are  considered  correlatively  with  the  spirit  and  intention  of 
the  poems  which  Shakespeare  wrote  for  him,  and  dedicated  to 
him  a  little  later. 

Thomas  Wriothesley,  second  Earl  of  Southampton,  and 
father  of  Shakespeare's  patron,  died  on  4th  October  1581. 
Henry,  his  only  surviving  son,  thus  became  Earl  of  South- 
ampton before  he  had  attained  his  eighth  birthday,  and 
consequently  became,  and  remained  until  his  majority,  a 
ward  of  the  Crown.  The  Court  of  Chancery  was  at  that 
period  a  much  simpler  institution  than  it  is  to-day,  and 


154    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

Lord  Burghley  seems  personally  to  have  exercised  the  chief 
functions  of  that  Court  in  its  relation  to  wards  in  Chancery, 
and  also  to  have  monopolised  its  privileges.  We  may  infer 
that  this  was  a  position  by  no  means  distasteful  to  that 
prudent  minister's  provident  and  nepotic  spirit.  Burghley 
was  essentially  of  that  type  of  statesmen  who  are  better 
contented  with  actual  power,  and  its  accruing  profits,  than 
the  appearance  of  power  and  the  glory  of  its  trappings. 
Leicester,  Raleigh,  and  Essex  might,  in  turn,  pose  their  day 
as  they  willed  upon  the  political  stage  so  long  as  they 
confined  themselves  to  subordinate  or  ornamental  capacities ; 
but  whenever  they  attempted  seriously  to  encroach  upon 
the  reins  of  power,  he  set  himself  to  circumvent  them  with 
a  patience  and  finesse  that  invariably  wrought  their 
undoing. 

In  this  system  of  politics  he  had  an  apt  pupil  in  his  son, 
Sir  Robert  Cecil,  who,  viewed  through  the  ages,  while  pre- 
senting a  less  solid  figure  than  his  father,  displays  a  much 
more  refined  and  Machiavellian  craft. 

The  attention  and  care  which  Burghley  bestowed  from 
the  beginning  upon  his  young  ward's  affairs  bespeak  an 
interest  within  an  interest  when  his  prudent  and  calculating 
nature  is  borne  in  mind  and  the  later  incidents  of  his 
guardianship  are  considered. 

Towards  the  end  of  1585,  at  the  age  of  twelve,  South- 
ampton became  a  student  of  St.  John's  College,  Cambridge, 
from  whence  he  graduated  as  M.A.  about  four  years  later, 
i.e.  in  June  1589.  After  leaving  Cambridge  in  1589,  he 
lived  for  over  a  year  with  his  mother  at  Cowdray  House  in 
Sussex.  Early  in  this  year,  or  possibly  while  Southampton 
was  still  at  Cambridge,  Burghley  had  opened  negotiations 
with  the  Countess  of  Southampton  with  the  object,  of 


THE  EARL  OF  SOUTHAMPTON     155 

uniting  the  interests  and  fortunes  of  her  son  with  his  own 
house,  by  consummating  a  marriage  between  this  wealthy 
and  promising  young  peer  and  his  own  granddaughter, 
Lady  Elizabeth  Vere,  daughter  of  the  Earl  of  Oxford. 
Burghley's  extreme  interest  in  the  match  is  fully  attested 
by  a  few  letters  that  are  still  extant.  In  the  Calendar 
State  Papers  we  have  an  apologetic  letter  from  Sir  Thomas 
Stanhope  (whose  wife  and  daughter  had  recently  visited 
Lady  Southampton  at  Cowdray)  to  Lord  Burghley,  dated 
1 5th  July  1590,  assuring  him  that  he  had  never  sought  to 
procure  the  young  Earl  of  Southampton  in  marriage  for 
his  daughter,  as  he  knew  Burghley  intended  marriage  be- 
tween him  and  the  Lady  Vere.  That  an  actual  engagement 
of  marriage  had  already  been  entered  into,  we  have  proof 
in  another  letter  dated  ipth  September  1590,  from  Anthony 
Brown,  Viscount  Montague  (Southampton's  maternal 
grandfather),  to  Lord  Burghley.  Regarding  this  engage- 
ment he  writes,  that  Southampton  "  is  not  averse  from  it," 
and  repeats  further,  that  his  daughter,  Lady  Southampton, 
is  not  aware  of  any  alteration  in  her  son's  mind.  The  tone 
of  this  latter  epistle  does  not  seem  to  evince  any  great 
enthusiasm  for  the  match  upon  the  part  of  either  South- 
ampton or  his  mother;  its  rather  diffident  spirit  was  not 
lost  upon  Burghley,  who,  within  a  few  days  of  its  receipt, 
commanded  the  attendance  of  his  young  ward  at  Court. 
Upon  I4th  October  1590 — that  is,  less  than  a  month  after 
Viscount  Montague's  letter  to  Burghley — we  have  a  letter 
from  Lady  Southampton  announcing  her  son's  departure  for 
London,  and  commending  him  to  Burghley,  but  making  no 
mention  of  the  proposed  marriage.  From  the  fact  that  she 
thanks  Burghley  for  the  "  long  time  "  he  "  had  intrusted  "  her 
son  with  her,  we  may  infer  that  his  present  departure  for 


156    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

London  was  occasioned  by  Burghley's  order,  and  also  that  the 
" long  time''  indicated  by  Lady  Southampton's  letter,  was 
the  interval  between  Southampton's  leaving  Cambridge  in 
June  1589  and  his  present  departure  for  London  in  October 
1590.  We  are  also  assured  by  this  data  that  Southampton 
had  not  travelled  upon  the  Continent  previous  to  his  coming 
to  Court.  Between  the  time  of  his  coming  to  London  in 
October  1590  and  August  1591,  I  find  no  dates  in  con- 
temporary records  referring  to  Southampton  ;  but  it  appears 
evident  that  these  nine  months  were  spent  at  Court. 

Some  misgivings  regarding  the  young  Earl's  desire  for 
the  match  with  his  granddaughter  seem  to  have  arisen  in 
Burghley's  mind  in  March  1 592,  at  which  time  Southampton 
was  with  the  English  forces  in  France.  From  this  we  may 
judge  that  Southampton's  departure  for  the  wars  was  under- 
taken at  his  own  initiative  and  not  at  Burghley's  suggestion. 
It  appears  likely  that  a  lack  of  marital  ardour  inspired  his 
martial  ardour  at  this  time,  and  that  Burghley  was  conscious 
of  his  disinclination  to  the  proposed  marriage.  In  a  letter 
dated  6th  March  1592  (new  style)  Roger  Manners  writing 
to  Burghley  tells  him  he  has  been  at  North  Hall  with  the 
Countess  of  Warwick,  whom  he  reports  as  "very  well 
inclined  to  the  match  between  the  Earl  of  Bedford  and  the 
Lady  Vere."  "  She  is  desirous  to  know,"  he  adds,  "  if  your 
Lordship  approves  of  it."  While  this  letter  shows  that 
Burghley  at  this  date  had  doubts  regarding  Southampton's 
fulfilment  of  his  engagement,  other  inferences  lead  me  to 
judge  that  it  was  not  finally  disrupted  until  the  spring  of 

1594. 

We  have  record  that  Southampton's  name  was  entered 
as  a  student  of  Gray's  Inn  in  July  1590, — that  is,  three  months 
before  his  arrival  in  London, — and  may  therefore  assume  that 


THE   EARL   OF   SOUTHAMPTON     157 

some  of  his   subsequent   time  in  London  was  occupied  in 
more  or  less  perfunctory  legal  studies. 

As  continental  travel  and  an  acquaintance  with  foreign 
tongues — at  least  Italian  and  French — had  then  come  to  be 
regarded  as  a  part  of  a  nobleman's  education,  Burghley, 
soon  after  Southampton's  coming  to  Court,  provided  him 
with  a  tutor  of  languages  in  the  person  of  John  Florio,  who 
thereafter  continued  in  his  pay  and  patronage  as  late  as,  if 
not  later  than,  1598.  Even  after  this  date  Southampton 
continued  to  befriend  Florio  for  many  years. 

As  Florio  continued  in  Southampton's  service  during  the 
entire  Sonnet  period  and  played  an  important  r61e  in  what 
shall  hereafter  be  developed  as  The  Story  of  the  Sonnets,  and 
as  he  shall  also  be  shown  to  have  provided  Shakespeare  with 
a  model  for  several  important  characters  in  The  Plays  of  the 
Sonnet  Period,  a  brief  consideration  of  his  heredity  and 
personal  characteristics  may  help  us  to  realise  the  manner 
in  which  Shakespeare  held  "  the  mirror  up  to  nature  "  in 
his  dramatic  characterisations. 

John  Florio  was  born  before  1553  and  was  the  son  of 
Michael  Angelo  Florio,  a  Florentine  Protestant,  who  left 
Italy  in  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII.  to  escape  the  persecution 
in  the  Valteline.  Florio's  father  was  pastor  to  a  congrega- 
tion of  his  religious  compatriots  in  London  for  several 
years.  He  was  befriended  by  Archbishop  Cranmer,  and 
was  patronised  by  Sir  William  Cecil  during  the  reign  of 
Edward  VI. ;  but  lost  his  church  and  the  patronage  of 
Cecil  on  account  of  charges  of  gross  immorality  that  were 
made  against  him.  We  are  informed  by  Anthony  Wood 
that  the  elder  Florio  left  England  upon  the  accession  of 
Mary,  and  moved  to  the  Continent,  probably  to  France, 
where  John  Florio  received  his  early  education.  The  earliest 


158    SHAKESPEARE'S  LOST  YEARS 

knowledge  we  have  of  John  Florio  in  England  is  that  he 
lived  at  Oxford  for  several  years  in  his  youth,  and  that,  in 
or  about  1576,  he  became  tutor  in  Italian  to  a  Mr.  Barnes, 
son  of  the  Bishop  of  Durham.  In  1581,  according  to 
Anthony  Wood,  Florio  matriculated  at  Magdalen  and  was 
teacher  and  instructor  to  certain  scholars  at  the  University. 
In  1578  he  was  still  living  at  Oxford  when  he  dedicated  his 
First  Fruites  to  the  Earl  of  Leicester,  his  dedication  being 
dated  "From  my  lodgings  in  Worcester  Place."  In  1580 
he  dedicated  a  translation  from  the  Italian  of  Ramusio  to 
Edward  Bray,  sheriff  of  Oxford,  and  two  years  later  dedi- 
cated to  Sir  Edmund  Dyer  a  MS.  collection  of  Italian 
proverbs,  which  is  also  dated  from  Oxford  on  the  I2th 
of  November  1582. 

Nothing  definite  is  known  concerning  Florio  between 
1582  and  1591  ;  in  the  latter  year  he  published  his  Second 
Fruites,  dedicating  it  to  a  recent  patron,  Mr.  Nicholas 
Saunder  of  Ewell.  Between  about  1590  and  1591,  and  the 
end  of  1598  and  possibly  later,  he  continued  in  the  pay 
and  patronage  of  the  Earl  of  Southampton,  dedicating  his 
Worlde  of  Wordes  in  the  latter  year  "  To  the  Right  Honour- 
able Patrons  of  Virtue,  Patterns  of  Honour,  Roger,  Earl  of 
Rutland  ;  Henry,  Earl  of  Southampton ;  and  Lucy,  Countess 
of  Bedford."  A  new  and  enlarged  edition  of  this  book 
containing  his  portrait  was  published  in  1611.  In  the 
medallion  surrounding  this  picture  he  gives  his  age  as 
fifty-eight,  which  would  date  his  birth  in  1553,  the  year  of 
Queen  Mary's  accession.  It  is  probable  that  Florio  under- 
stated his  age,  as  he  is  said  to  have  received  his  early 
education  in  France  and  to  have  returned  to  England  with 
his  father  upon  the  accession  of  Elizabeth  in  1558.  Anthony 
Wood  gives  the  date  of  his  birth  as  1545,  an^  though  I 


THE   EARL   OF   SOUTHAMPTON     159 

cannot  find  his  authority  am  inclined  to  believe  the  earlier 
date  to  be  correct.  Florio  was  vain  enough  to  prevaricate 
on  a  matter  of  this  nature.  In  1603  he  published  his  chief 
work,  a  translation  of  The  Essaies  of  Montaigne.  Florio 
was  attached  to  the  Court  of  James  I.  as  French  and 
Italian  tutor  to  Prince  Henry  and  the  Queen,  and  also 
held  the  appointment  of  Gentleman  of  the  Privy  Chamber. 

Florio  was  married  on  pth  September  1617  to  a  Rose 
Spicer,  of  whom  nothing  earlier  than  the  marriage  record 
is  known.  From  the  facts  that  his  daughter  Aurelia  was 
already  married  at  the  time  of  his  death  in  1625,  and  that  in 
his  will  he  leaves  her  "  the  wedding  ring  wherewith  I  married 
her  mother,"  it  is  evident  that  Rose  Spicer  was  his  second 
wife. 

Following  a  suggestion  made  by  the  Rev.  J.  H.  Halpin, 
it  is  supposed  that  his  first  wife  was  a  Rose  Daniel,  a  sister 
of  Samuel  Daniel,  the  poet,  who  was  Florio's  classfellow  at 
Oxford.  In  the  address  to  dedicatory  verses  by  Daniel, 
prefixed  to  the  1611  edition  of  Florio's  Worlde  of  Wordes 
he  calls  Florio  "  My  dear  friend  and  brother,  Mr.  John 
Florio,  one  of  the  gentlemen  of  Her  Majesties  Royal  Privy 
Chamber."  From  this  it  has  been  supposed  that  Florio's 
first  wife  was  Daniel's  sister,  and  Mr.  Halpin  inferred  that 
she  was  named  Rose  from  his  assumption  that  Spenser 
refers  to  her  as  Rosalinde,  and  to  Florio  as  Menalcas  in 
The  Shepheards  Calendar  in  1579.  Mr.  Grosart,  who 
carefully  investigated  the  matter,  states  that  Daniel — who 
in  1611  was  also  a  Gentleman  of  the  Privy  Chamber — had 
only  two  sisters,  neither  of  them  being  named  Rose.  It  is 
likely,  then,  that  Daniel  referred  to  his  official  connection 
with  Florio  by  the  term  "brother,"  as  in  1603,  in  a  similar 
address  to  dedicatory  verses  prefixed  to  Montaigne  s  Essaies 


160    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

he  refers  to  him  only  as  "  My  Friend."  There  is  no  record 
of  Florio's  first  marriage. 

It  is  very  unlikely,  however,  that  two  women  named 
Rose  should  have  come  so  intimately  into  Florio's  life,  and 
probable,  when  all  the  evidence  is  considered,  that  Rose 
Spicer,  the  "  dear  wife  Rose  "  mentioned  in  his  will,  was  the 
"  Rosalinde"  of  his  youth,  whom,  it  appears,  he  had  seduced, 
and  with  whom  he  had  evidently  lived  in  concubinage  in 
the  intervening  years;  making  tardy  amends  by  marriage 
in  1617,  only  eight  years  before  his  death.  His  marriage 
to  Rose  Spicer  was  evidently  brought  about  by  the  admoni- 
tions of  his  friend  Theophilus  Field,  Bishop  of  Llandaff, 
under  whose  influence  Florio  became  religious  in  his  de- 
clining years. 

In  Florio's  will,  in  which  he  bequeaths  nearly  all  of  his 
small  property  to  his  "  beloved  wife  Rose,"  he  regrets  that 
he  "  cannot  give  or  leave  her  more  in  requital  of  her  tender 
love,  loving  care,  painful  diligence,  and  continual  labour  to  me 
in  all  my  fortunes  and  many  sicknesses ;  than  whom  never  had 
husband  a  more  loving  wife,  painful  nurse,  and  comfortable 
consort."  The  words  I  have  italicised  indicate  conjugal 
relations  covering  a  much  longer  period  than  the  eight 
years  between  his  formal  marriage  in  1617  and  his  death 
in  1625.  The  term  "all  my  fortunes"  certainly  implies  a 
connection  between  them  antedating  Florio's  sixty-fourth 
year. 

We  may  infer  that  the  Bishop  of  Llandaff  and  Florio's 
pastor,  Dr.  Cluet,  whom  he  appointed  overseers  and  executors 
of  his  will,  held  Florio  in  light  esteem,  as  "for  certain  reasons" 
they  renounced  its  execution.  The  Earl  of  Pembroke,  to 
whom  he  bequeathed  his  books,  apparently  neglected  to 
avail  himself  of  the  legacy,  and  probably  for  the  same 


THE  EARL   OF   SOUTHAMPTON     161 

reasons.     An  examination  of  Florio's  characteristic  will — in 
the  Appendix — will  suggest  the  nature  of  these  reasons. 

Mr.  Halpin's  inference  that  Florio  as  Menalcas  had 
already  married  "  Rosalinde "  in  1596,  when  the  last  books 
of  The  Faerie  Queen  were  published,  is  deduced  from  the 
idea  that  the  originals  for  "  Mirabella  "  and  the  "  Carle  and 
fool"  of  the  The  Faerie  Queen  are  identical  with  those  for 
"  Rosalinde  "  and  "  Menalcas  "  of  The  Shepheards  Calendar. 
While  it  is  probable  that  Spenser  had  the  same  originals  in 
mind  in  both  cases,  an  analysis  of  his  verses  in  The  Faerie 
Queen  shows  that  the  "  Carle  and  fool,"  who  accompany 
Mirabella,  represent  two  persons,  i.e.  "  Disdaine "  and 
"  Scorne."  In  the  following  verses  Mirabella  speaks  : 

"  In  prime  of  youthly  yeares,  when  first  the  flowre 
Of  beauty  gan  to  bud,  and  bloosme  delight, 
And  Nature  me  endu'd  with  plenteous  dowre 
Of  all  her  gifts,  that  pleased  each  living  sight, 
I  was  belov'd  of  many  a  gentle  Knight, 
And  sude  and  sought  with  all  the  service  dew : 
Full  many  a  one  for  me  deepe  groand  and  sight, 
And  to  the  dore  of  death  for  sorrow  drew, 
Complayning  out  on  me  that  would  not  on  them  rew. 

But  let  them  love  that  list,  or  live  or  die, 
Me  list  not  die  for  any  lovers  doole ; 
Ne  list  me  leave  my  loved  libertie 
To  pitty  him  that  list  to  play  the  foole  ; 
To  love  myselfe  I  learned  had  in  schoole. 
Thus  I  triumphed  long  in  lovers  paine. 
And  sitting  carelesse  on  the  scorners  stoole, 
Did  laugh  at  those  that  did  lament  and  plaine ; 
But  all  is  now  repayd  with  interest  againe. 

For  loe  !  the  winged  God  that  woundeth  harts 
Causde  me  be  called  to  accompt  therefore; 
And  for  revengement  of  those  wrongfull  smarts, 
Which  I  to  others  did  inflict  afore, 
Addeem'd  me  to  endure  this  penaunce  sore ; 
That  in  this  wize,  and  this  unmeete  array, 
With  these  two  lewd  companions,  and  no  more, 
Disdaine  and  Scorne,  1  through  the  world  should  stray" 
II 


162    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

Assuming  "  Mirabella "  and  "  Rosalinda "  to  indicate  the 
same  woman,  i.e.  Rose  Spicer,  whom  Florio  married  in 
1617,  but  with  whom  he  had  been  living  in  concubinage 
for  about  eighteen  years  when  the  last  three  books  of 
The  Faerie  Queen  were  published,  Mirabella's  penance  of 
being  forced  to  "stray  through  the  world"  accompanied 
by  "  Disdaine "  and  "  Scorne,"  would  match  her  plight 
as  Florio's  mistress,  but  would  not  apply  to  her  as  his 
wife. 

The  Rosalinde  indicated  by  Spenser  was  undoubtedly 
a  north  of  England  girl,  while  Samuel  Daniel  belonged  to  a 
Somerset  family.  While  it  is  certain  that  Florio  was  married 
before  1617,  it  is  evident  he  did  not  marry  a  Miss  Daniel,  and 
that  Menalcas  had  not  married  Rosalinde  in  1596;  yet  it  is 
practically  certain  that  Spenser  refers  to  Florio  as  Menalcas, 
and  that  Shakespeare  recognised  that  fact  in  1592  and 
pilloried  Florio  to  the  initiated  of  his  day  as  Parolles  in 
Loves  Labour's  Won  in  this  connection.  Florio  habitually 
signed  himself  "  Resolute  John  Florio "  to  acquaintances, 
obligations,  dedications,  etc.  When  he  commenced  this 
practice  I  cannot  learn,  but  the  use  of  the  word  was  known 
to  Spenser  in  1579,  as  the  Greek  word  Menalcas  means 
Resolute.  It  is  not  difficult  to  fathom  Spenser's  meaning 
in  regard  to  the  relations  between  Menalcas  and  Rosalinde, 
and  it  is  clear  that  he  had  a  poor  opinion  of  the  moral 
character  of  the  former,  and  plainly  charges  him  with 
seduction. 

"And  thou,  Menalcas,  that  by  treacheree 
Didst  underfong  my  lasse  to  waxe  so  light, 
Shouldest  well  be  known  for  such  thy  villanee. 
But  since  I  am  not  as  I  wish  I  were, 
Ye  gentle  Shepheards,  which  your  flocks  do  feede, 
Whether  on  hylls,  or  dales,  or  other  where, 
Beare  witnesse  all  of  thys  so  wicked  deede : 


THE  EARL   OF  SOUTHAMPTON     163 

And  tell  the  lasse,  whose  flowre  is  woxe  a  weede, 
And  faultlesse  fayth  is  turned  to  faithlesse  fere, 
That  she  the  truest  shepheards  hart  made  bleede, 
That  lyves  on  earth,  and  loved  her  most  dere." 


The  very  unusual  word  "  underfong  "  which  Spenser  uses  in 
these  verses,  and  the  gloss  which  he  appends  to  the  verses 
of  The  Shepheards  Calendar  for  June,  were  not  lost  upon 
Shakespeare.  Spenser,  in  the  glossary,  writes :  "  Menalcas, 
the  name  of  a  shephearde  in  Virgile ;  but  here  is  meant  a 
person  unknowne  and  secrete,  against  whome  he  often  bitterly 
invayeth.  Underfonge,  undermyne,  and  deceive  by  false 
suggestion."  The  immoral  flippancy  of  the  remarkable 
dialogue  between  the  disreputable  Parolles  and  the  other- 
wise sweet  and  maidenly  Helena,  in  Act  I.  Scene  i.  of  All's 
Well  that  Ends  Well^  has  often  been  noticed  by  critics  as  a 
peculiar  lapse  in  dramatic  congruity  on  the  part  of  Shake- 
speare. This  is  evidently  one  of  several  such  instances  in 
his  plays  where  he  sacrificed  his  objective  dramatic  art  to  a  sub- 
jective contingency,  though  by  doing  so  undoubtedly  adding 
a  greater  interest  to  contemporary  presentations  not  only  by 
the  palpable  reflection  of  Spenser's  point  at  Florio  in  the 
play  on  the  word  "  undermine "  in  a  similar  connection,  but 
also  as  reflecting  the  wide  latitude  his  Italianate  breeding 
and  manners  and  his  Mediterranean  unmorality  allowed 
him  and  his  type  to  take  in  conversing  with  English  gentle- 
women at  that  period. 

The  Rev.  J.  H.  Halpin  was  not  far  from  the  truth  in 
saying  that  "  Florio  was  beset  with  tempers  and  oddities 
which  exposed  him  more  perhaps  than  any  man  of  his 
time  to  the  ridicule  of  his  contemporaries " ;  and  that  "  he 
was  in  his  literary  career,  jealous,  vain,  irritable,  pedantic, 
bombastical,  petulant,  and  quarrelsome,  ever  on  the 


164    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

watch  for  an  affront,  always  in   the  attitude   of  a   fretful 
porcupine." 

Florio  became  connected  as  tutor  of  languages  with  the 
Earl  of  Southampton  some  time  before  the  end  of  April 
1591,  when  he  issued  his  Second  Fruites  and  dedicated  it 
to  his  recent  patron,  Nicholas  Saunder  of  Ewell.  In  this 
publication  there  is  a  passage  which  not  only  exhibits  the 
man's  unblushing  effrontery,  but  also  gives  us  a  passing 
glimpse  of  his  early  relations  with  his  noble  patron,  the 
spirit  of  which  Shakespeare  reflects  in  FalstafFs  impudent 
familiarity  with  Prince  Hal.  This  passage  serves  also  to 
show  that  at  the  time  it  was  written,  the  last  of  April  1591, 
Florio  had  entered  the  pay  and  patronage  of  the  Earl  of 
Southampton.  He  introduces  two  characters  as  follows,  and, 
with  true  Falstaffian  assurance,  gives  them  his  own  and  the 
Earl  of  Southampton's  Christian  names,  Henry  and  John. 
Falstaff  invariably  addresses  the  Prince  as  Hal. 

HENRY.  Let  us  make  a  match  at  tennis. 

JOHN.  Agreed,  this  fine  morning  calls  for  it. 

HENRY.  And  after,  we  will  go  to  dinner,  and  after  dinner  we  will  see  a  play. 

JOHN.  The  plaies  they  play  in  England  are  neither  right  comedies  nor  right 

tragedies. 

HENRY.  But  they  do  nothing  but  play  every  day. 

JOHN.  Yea :  but  they  are  neither  right  comedies  nor  right  tragedies. 

HENRY.  How  would  you  name  them  then  ? 

JOHN.  Representations  of  history,  without  any  decorum. 

It  shall  later  be  shown  that  Chapman  also  noticed 
Florio's  presumption  in  this  instance,  and  that  he  recog- 
nised the  fact,  or  else  assumed  as  a  fact,  that  Florio's 
stricture  on  English  historical  drama  was  directed  against 
Shakespeare. 

We  may  judge  from  the  conversation  between  Henry  and 
John  that  Southampton,  in  attaining  a  colloquial  knowledge 


THE  EARL   OF  SOUTHAMPTON     165 

of  French  and  Italian,  entered  into  intimate  relations  with 
Florio,  and  from  the  interest  that  he  displayed  in  dramatic 
affairs  in  later  years,  that  during  his  first  year  in  London  he 
would  be  likely  frequently  to  witness  the  performance  of 
plays  in  the  public  theatres.  It  is  probable,  then,  that  he 
would  have  seen  performances  by  both  Pembroke's  and 
Strange's  companies  in  this  year. 

It  is  evident  that  an  acquaintance  between  the  Earl  of 
Southampton  and  Shakespeare  was  not  formed  previous  to 
Southampton's  coming  to  Court  in  November  1590.  A  first 
acquaintance  undoubtedly  had  its  inception  between  that 
date  and  Southampton's  departure  for  France  early  in  1592. 
I  shall  now  develop  evidence  for  my  belief  that  their  first 
acquaintance  was  made  upon  the  occasion  of  the  Queen's 
progress  to  Cowdray  and  Tichfield  House  in  August  and 
September  1591. 

I  find  no  record  in  the  State  Papers  concerning  South- 
ampton between  the  date  of  his  departure  from  home  for  the 
Court  in  October  1590,  and  2nd  March  1592  (new  style), 
when  he  wrote  from  Dieppe  to  the  Earl  of  Essex.  We  may, 
however,  infer  that  he  was  still  in  England  on  i$th  August 
1591,  the  date  of  the  arrival  of  the  Queen  and  Court  at 
Cowdray  House.  //  is  evident  also  that  the  progress  would 
not  have  proceeded  a  week  later  to  his  own  county  seat>  Tich- 
field House,  unless  he  was  present.  We  have  evidence  in  the 
State  Papers  that  the  itineraries  of  the  Queen's  progresses 
were  usually  planned  by  Burghley ;  the  present  progress  to 
Cowdray  and  Tichfield  was  undoubtedly  arranged  in  further- 
ance of  his  matrimonial  plans  for  his  granddaughter  and 
Southampton.  The  records  of  this  progress  give  us  details 
concerning  the  entertainments  for  the  Queen,  which  were 
given  at  some  of  the  other  noblemen's  houses  she  visited ; 


166    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

the  verses,  masques,  and  plays  being  still  preserved  in  a  few 
instances,  even  where  she  tarried  for  only  a  few  days.  The 
Court  remained  at  Cowdray  House  for  a  full  week.  No 
verses  nor  plays  recited  or  performed  upon  this  occasion,  nor 
upon  the  occasion  of  her  visit,  a  week  later,  to  the  Earl  of 
Southampton's  house  at  Tichfield,  have  been  preserved  in 
the  records.  It  is  very  probable,  however,  in  the  light  of  the 
facts  to  follow,  that  our  poet  and  his  fellow-players  attended 
the  Earl  of  Southampton,  both  at  Cowdray  House  and  at 
Tichfieldj  during  this  progress.  In  the  description  of  the 
Queen's  entertainment  during  her  stay  at  Cowdray,  I  find 
a  most  suggestive  resemblance  to  much  of  the  action  and 
plot  of  Lovers  Labour's  Lost  The  Queen  and  Court  arrived 
at  Cowdray  House  at  eight  o'clock  on  Saturday  evening, 
1 5th  August.  That  night,  the  records  tell  us,  "her  Majesty 
took  her  rest  and  so  in  like  manner  the  next,  which 
was  Sunday,  being  most  royally  feasted,  the  proportion  of 
breakfast  being  3  oxen  and  140  geese."  "  The  next  day,"  we 
are  informed,  "  she  rode  in  the  park  where  a  delicate  bower  " 
was  prepared  and  "a  nymph  with  a  sweet  song  delivered 
her  a  crossbow  to  shoot  at  the  deer  of  which  she  killed 
three  or  four  and  the  Countess  of  Kildare  one."  In  Love's 
Labour's  Lost  the  Princess  and  her  ladies  shoot  at  deer  from 
a  coppice. 

PRINCESS.   Then,  forester,  my  friend,  where  is  the  bush 

That  we  must  stand  and  play  the  murderer  in  ? 

FOR.  Hereby,  upon  the  edge  of  yonder  coppice ; 

A  stand  where  you  may  make  the  fairest  shoot. 

In  Act  IV.  Scene  ii.,  Holofernes  makes  an  "extemporal 
epitaph  on  the  death  of  the  deer,"  which  is  reminiscent 
of  the  "sweet  song"  delivered  to  the  Queen  by  "the 
nymph." 


THE   EARL  OF  SOUTHAMPTON     167 

HOL.    Sir  Nathaniel,  will  you  hear  an  extemporal  epitaph  on  the  death  of  the 
deer?    And,  to  humour  the  ignorant,  call  I. the  deer  the  princess  killed  a  pricket. 


I  will  something  affect  the  letter,  for  it  argues  facility. 


The  preyful  princess  pierced  and  prick'd  a  pretty  pleasing  pricket; 

Some  say  a  sore,  but  not  a  sore,  till  now  made  sore  with  shooting. 
The  dogs  did  yell ;  put  L  to  sore,  then  sorel  jumps  from  thicket ; 

Or  pricket  sore,  or  else  sorel ;  the  people  fall  a-hooting. 
If  sore  be  sore,  then  L  to  sore  makes  fifty  sores  one  sorel. 
Of  one  sore  I  an  hundred  make  by  adding  but  one  more  L. 


In  a  former  publication  I  have  shown  that  an  antagonism  had 
developed  between  Shakespeare  and  Chapman  as  early  as  the  year 
1594,  and  in  a  more  recent  one  have  shown  Matthew  Roydoris 
complicacy  with  Chapman  in  his  hostility  to  Shakespeare,  and 
also  Shakespeare* s  cognizance  of  it.  I  have  displayed  Shake- 
speare's answers  to  the  attacks  of  these  scholars  in  his  cari- 
cature of  Chapman  as  Holofernes,  and  of  the  curate  Roydon 
as  the  curate  Nathaniel.  Chapman's  attack  upon  Shake- 
speare in  1593  in  the  early  Histriomastix  and  his  reflection 
of  the  Earl  of  Southampton  as  Mavortius  give  evidence  that 
his  hostility  owed  its  birth  to  Shakespeare's  success  in  winning 
the  patronage  and  friendship  of  Southampton ;  unless  Chapman 
and  Roydon  had  already  solicited  this  nobleman's  patronage, 
or  had  at  least  come  into  contact  with  him  in  some  manner, 
and  considered  themselves  displaced  by  Shakespeare,  both 
the  virulence  of  their  opposition  to  our  poet,  and  the  manner 
and  matter  of  Chapman's  slurs  against  him  in  Histriomastixy 
and  in  the  dedications  of  his  poems  to  Matthew  Roydon  in 
1594-95,  are  unaccountable. 

It  is  likely  that  Matthew  Roydon  was  one  of  the  theo- 
logical poets  —  who  wrote  anonymously  for  the  stage — 
mentioned  by  Robert  Greene  in  the  introduction  to  The 


168    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

Farewell  to  Folly  >  which  was  published  in  1591.  It  is 
probable  also  that  Roydon  is  referred  to  as  a  writer  for  the 
stage  in  Greene's  Groatsworth  of  Wit,  where,  after  indicating 
Marlowe,  Peele,  and  Nashe,  he  says : 

"  In  this  I  might  insert  two  more  who  have  both  writ  against  (for)  these 
buckram  gentlemen." 

Now  seeing  that  both  Roydon  and  Chapman  are  satirised 
by  Shakespeare  in  Love's  Labours  Lost,  it  occurs  to  me  that 
the  "preyful  Princess"  verses  quoted  above  (which  display 
parody  in  every  line)  are  intended  by  Shakespeare  to  carica- 
ture the  known  work  of  the  author  of  the  sweet  song  delivered 
to  the  Queen  by  the  nymph,  and  consequently  that  this  song 
was  from  the  pen  of  one  of  this  learned  couple.  As  I  have 
already  noticed,  in  the  records  of  the  Queen's  stay  at  the  other 
noblemen's  houses  that  she  visited  on  this  progress,  many 
verses  and  songs  appear  which  were  written  specially  for 
these  occasions,  while  no  songs,  nor  verses,  have  been  preserved 
from  the  Cowdray  or  Tichfield  festivities,  occasions  when 
they  would  be  likely  to  have  been  used,  considering 
Southampton's  interest  in  literary  matters  and  the  court 
paid  to  him  by  the  writers  of  the  day.  Among  the  poems 
which  I  have  collected  that  I  attribute  to  Roydon,  I  have 
elsewhere  noticed  one  that  Shakespeare  makes  fun  of  at 
a  later  time  in  Midsummer  Nights  Dream — that  is,  The 
Shepherd's  Slumber.  This  poem  deals  with  the  exact  season 
of  the  year  when  the  Queen  was  at  Cowdray — "peascod 
time  " — and  also  with  the  killing  of  deer, 

"when  hound  to  horn  gives  ear  till  buck  be  killed"; 

and  in  one  verse  describes  just  such  methods  of  killing  deer 
as  is  suggested,  both  in  Love's  Labour's  Lost  and  in  Nicholas 


THE   EARL   OF   SOUTHAMPTON     169 

Progresses,  which  latter  records  the  entertainment  for  the 
Queen  at  Cowdray  House. 

"And  like  the  deer,  I  make  them  fall! 
That  runneth  o'er  the  lawn. 
One  drops  down  here  !  another  there  ! 
In  bushes  as  they  groan ; 
I  bend  a  scornful,  careless  ear, 
To  hear  them  make  their  moan." 

May  not  this  be  the  identical  "  sweet  song  "  delivered  by  the 
nymph  to  the  Queen,  and  the  occasion  of  the  progress  to 
Cowdray,  in  1591,  indicate  the  entry  of  Roydon  and  Chapman 
into  the  rivalry  between  Shakespeare  and  the  scholars 
inaugurated  two  years  earlier  by  Greene  and  Nashe  ? 

This  poem  which  I  attribute  to  Roydon  has  all  the 
manner  of  an  occasional  production  and  is  about  as  senseless 
as  most  of  his  other  "absolute  comicke  inventions."  The 
masque-like  allegory  it  exhibits,  introducing  "Delight," 
"  Wit,"  "  Good  Sport,"  "  Honest  Meaning  "  as  persons,  was 
much  affected  by  the  Queen  and  Court  in  their  entertain- 
ments. At  the  marriage  of  Lord  Herbert,  son  of  the  Earl  of 
Worcester,  in  1599,  a  masque  was  given  for  the  Queen  in 
which  we  are  told  eight  ladies  of  the  Court  performed.  One 
of  these  ladies  "wooed  her  to  dawnce,  her  Majesty  asked 
what  she  was,  affection  she  said,  affection,  said  the  Queen, 
affection  is  false,  yet  her  Majesty  rose  and  dawnced."  During 
the  stay  at  Cowdray  similar  make-believe  and  allegory  were 
evidently  used  in  the  entertainments  given  for  the  Queen. 
Roy  don's  poem  may,  like  Love's  Labour's  Lost,  be  a  reflection 
of  such  courtly  nonsense. 

During  the  first  three  days  of  the  Queen's  stay  at  Cowdray 
she  was  feasted  and  entertained  (the  records  inform  us)  by 
Lady  Montague,  but  on  the  fourth  day  "  she  dined  at  the 
Priory,"  where  Lord  Montague  kept  bachelor's  hall,  and 


170    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

whither  he  had  retired  to  receive  and  entertain  the  Queen 
without  the  assistance  of  Lady  Montague.  This  reception 
and  entertainment  of  the  Queen  by  Lord  Montague  was,  no 
doubt,  accompanied  by  fantastic  allegory — Lord  Montague 
and  his  friends  playing  the  parts  of  hermits,  or  philosophers 
in  retreat,  as  in  the  case  of  the  King  of  Navarre  and  his 
friends  in  Lovers  Labour's  Lost.  The  paucity  of  plot  in  this 
play  has  been  frequently  noticed,  and  no  known  basis  for  its 
general  action  and  plot  has  ever  been  discovered  or  proposed. 

At  this  time  (1591)  Shakespeare  had  been  in  London 
only  from  four  to  five  years,  and,  judging  from  the  prominence 
in  his  profession  which  he  shortly  afterwards  attained,  we 
may  be  assured  that  these  were  years  of  patient  drudgery  in 
his  calling.  Neither  in  his  Stratford  years,  nor  during  these 
inceptive  theatrical  years,  would  he  be  likely  to  have  had 
much,  if  any,  previous  experience  with  the  social  life  of  the 
nobility;  yet  here,  in  what  is  recognised  by  practically  all 
critical  students  as  his  earliest  comedy,  the  original  com- 
position of  which  is  dated  by  the  best  text  critics  in,  or  about, 
1591,  he  displays  an  intimate  acquaintance  with  their  sports 
and  customs  which  in  spirit  and  detail  most  significantly 
coincide  with  the  actual  records  of  the  Queen's  progress,  late 
in  1591,  to  Cowdray  House,  the  home  of  the  mother  of  the 
nobleman  whose  fortunes,  from  this  time  forward  for  a  period 
of  from  ten  to  fifteen  years,  may  be  shown  to  have  influenced 
practically  every  poem  and  play  he  produced. 

As  the  incidents  of  the  Queen's  stay  at  Cowdray  are 
reflected  in  the  plot  and  action  of  Love's  Labours  Lost,  so, 
in  Airs  Well  that  Ends  Well,  or,  at  least,  in  those  portions 
of  that  play  recognised  by  the  best  critics  as  the  remains  of 
the  older  play  of  Love's  Labour's  Won,  the  incidents  and 
atmosphere  of  the  Queen's  stay  at  Tichfield  House  are  also 


THE   EARL   OF   SOUTHAMPTON     171 

suggested.  The  gentle  and  dignified  Countess  of  Rousillon 
suggests  the  widowed  Countess  of  Southampton;  the  wise 
and  courtly  Lafeu  gives  us  a  sketch  of  Sir  Thomas  Heneage, 
the  Vice-Chamberlain  of  the  Court,  who  married  Lady 
Southampton  about  three  years  later.  Bertram's  insensibility 
to  Helena's  love,  and  indifference  to  her  charms,  as  well  as 
his  departure  for  the  French  Court,  coincide  with  the  actual 
facts  in  the  case  of  Southampton,  who  at  this  time  was 
apathetic  to  the  match  planned  by  his  friends,  and  who  also 
left  home  for  France  shortly  after  the  Queen's  visit  to 
Cowdray.  Parolles  is,  I  am  convinced,  a  caricature  from 
life,  and  in  his  original  characterisation  in  Lovers  Labours 
Won  was  probably  a  replica  of  the  original  Armado  of  the 
earliest  form  of  Love's  Labour's  Lost.  Both  of  these  characters 
I  believe  I  can  demonstrate  to  be  early  sketches,  or  caricatures, 
of  John  Florio,  the  same  individual  who  is  caricatured  in 
Henry  IV.  and  the  Merry  Wives  of  Windsor  as  Sir  John 
Falstaff.  The  characterisation  of  Parolles  as  we  have  it  in 
All's  Well  that  Ends  Well  is  probably  much  more  accentuated 
than  the  Parolles  of  the  earlier  form  of  the  play,  in  which  he 
would  most  likely  have  been  presented  as  a  fantastical  fop, 
somewhat  of  the  order  of  Armado.  By  the  time  the  earlier 
play  of  1591-92  was  rewritten  into  its  present  form,  in  1598, 
the  original  of  the  character  of  Parolles  had  in  Shakespeare's 
opinion  developed  also  into  a  "  misleader  of  youth  " ;  in  fact, 
into  another  Falstaff,  minus  the  adipose  tissue. 

As  both  Love's  Labour's  Lost  and  Love's  Labour's  Won 
(Airs  Well  that  Ends  Well  in  its  early  form)  reflect  persons 
and  incidents  of  the  Cowdray-Tichfield  progress,  it  is  evident 
that  both  plays  were  composed  after  the  event.  It  is  of 
interest  then  to  consider  which,  if  any,  of  Shakespeare's  plays 
were  likely  to  have  been  presented  upon  that  occasion. 


172    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

As  this  narrative  and  argument  develop,  a  date  of  com- 
position later  than  the  date  of  the  Cowdray  progress — when 
Shakespeare  first  formed  the  acquaintance  of  the  Earl  of 
Southampton — and  based  upon  subjective  evidence  regarding 
the  poet's  relations  with  this  nobleman,  yet  coinciding  with 
the  chronological  conclusions  of  the  best  text  critics,  shall  be 
demonstrated  for  all  of  Shakespeare's  early  plays  with  the 
exception  of  King  John  and  The  Comedy  of  Errors.  In  all 
the  early  plays  except  these  two  I  find  palpable  time  reflec- 
tions of  Shakespeare's  interest  in  the  Earl  of  Southampton 
or  his  affairs.  I  therefore  date  the  original  composition  of 
both  of  these  early  plays  previous  to  the  Cowdray  progress,  in 
September  1591.  I  have  already  advanced  my  evidence  for 
the  original  composition  of  Shakespeare's  King  John  early  in 
1591.  I  cannot  so  palpably  demonstrate  the  composition  of 
The  Comedy  of  Errors  in  this  year,  but,  following  the  lead  of 
the  great  majority  of  the  text  critics  who  date  its  composition 
in  this  year,  and  finding  no  internal  reflection  of  Southampton 
or  his  affairs,  I  infer  that  it  was  written  after  the  composition 
of  King  John,  before  Shakespeare  had  made  Southampton's 
acquaintance  and  intentionally  for  presentation  before  the 
Queen  and  Court  at  Cowdray  or  Tichfield.  The  fact  that 
The  Comedy  of  Errors  is  the  shortest  of  all  Shakespeare's 
plays,  the  farce-like  nature  of  the  play  and  its  recorded 
presentation  in  1594  before  the  members  of  Gray's  Inn,  with 
which  Southampton  was  connected,  marks  it  as  one  of  the 
plays  originally  composed  for  private  rather  than  for  public 
presentation.  It  is  evident  that  it  never  proved  sufficiently 
popular  upon  the  public  boards  to  warrant  its  enlargement 
to  the  size  of  the  average  publicly  presented  play. 

While     I     cannot     learn     the    actual     date     at    which 
Southampton    left    England,  we    have    proof    in   a    letter 


THE  EARL  OF   SOUTHAMPTON     173 

written    by   him   to   the   Earl   of   Essex,   that   he   was   in 
France  upon  2nd  March  1592. 

When  we  take  into  consideration  the  fact  that  this  visit 
of  the  Queen's  to  Cowdray  and  Tichfield  was  arranged  by 
Burghley  in  furtherance  of  his  plans  to  marry  his  grand- 
daughter to  the  Earl  of  Southampton,  and  that  Shakespeare's 
earlier  sonnets  (which  I  shall  argue  were  written  with  the 
intention  of  forwarding  this  match)  are  of  a  period  very 
slightly  later  than  this,  it  is  evident  that  the  incidents  of  the 
Queen's  stay  at  Cowdray  and  Tichfield  would  become  known 
to  Shakespeare  by  report,  even  though  he  was  not  himself 
present  upon  those  occasions.  The  plot  of  the  first  four 
Acts  of  Love's  Labours  Lost,  such  as  it  is,  bears  such  a 
strong  resemblance  to  the  recorded  incidents  of  that  visit 
as  to  suggest  reminiscence  much  more  than  hearsay. 

While  Burghley  in  this  affair  was,  no  doubt,  primarily 
seeking  a  suitable  alliance  for  his  granddaughter,  the  rather 
hurried  and  peremptory  manner  of  Southampton's  invitation 
to  Court  may  partially  be  accounted  for  by  other  motives, 
when  the  conditions  of  the  Court  and  its  intrigues  at  that 
immediate  period  are  considered. 

The  long  struggle  for  political  supremacy  between 
Burghley  and  Elizabeth's  first,  and  most  enduring  favourite, 
Robert  Dudley,  Earl  of  Leicester,  came  to  an  end  in  1588 
through  the  death  of  Leicester  in  that  year.  While 
Elizabeth's  faith  in  Burghley's  political  wisdom  was  never 
at  any  time  seriously  shaken  by  the  counsels  of  her  more 
polished  and  courtly  confidant,  Leicester,  there  was  a 
period  in  her  long  flirtation  with  the  latter  nobleman  when 
the  great  fascination,  which  he  undoubtedly  exercised  over 
her,  seemed  likely  to  lead  her  into  a  course  which  would 
completely  alter,  not  only  the  political  complexion  of  the 


174    SHAKESPEARE'S  LOST  YEARS 

Court,  but  possibly  also  the  actual  destinies  of  the  Crown. 
There  was  never  at  any  period  of  their  career  any  love 
lost  between  Burghley  and  Leicester;  the  latter,  in  the 
heyday  of  his  favour,  frequently  expressed  himself  in  such 
plain  terms  regarding  Burghley  that  he  could  have  had 
little  doubt  of  the  disastrous  effect  upon  his  own  fortunes 
which  might  ensue  from  the  consummation  of  Leicester's 
matrimonial  ambitions.  He,  withal,  wisely  gauged  the 
character  and  limits  of  Leicester's  influence  with  Elizabeth. 
While  Leicester  played  upon  the  vanities  and  weakness  of 
the  woman,  Burghley  appealed  to  the  strong  mentality  and 
love  of  power  of  the  queen;  yet  though  he  unceasingly 
opposed  Leicester's  projects  and  ambitions,  wherein  they 
threatened  his  own  political  supremacy,  or  the  good  of  the 
State,  he  seems  to  have  recognised  the  impossibility  of 
undermining  the  Queen's  personal  regard  for  her  great 
favourite,  which  continued  through  all  the  years  of  his 
selfish,  blundering,  and  criminal  career,  down  to  the  day 
of  his  death.  While  Leicester  also  in  time  appears  to  have 
realised  the  impossibility  of  seriously  impairing  Burghley's 
power,  he,  to  the  last,  lost  no  opportunity  of  baffling  that 
minister's  more  cherished  personal  policies.  In  introducing 
his  stepson,  Essex,  to  Court  life  and  the  notice  of  the 
Queen,  in  1583,  it  is  evident  that  he  had  in  mind  designs 
other  than  the  advancement  of  his  young  kinsman.  Essex, 
from  the  first,  seems  to  have  realised  in  whose  shoes  he 
trod,  and  for  the  first  ten  years  of  his  life  at  Court  fully 
maintained  the  Leicester  tradition,  and  seemed  likely  in 
time  even  to  refine  upon  and  enhance  it.  Had  this  young 
nobleman  possessed  ordinary  equipoise  of  temper  it  is 
questionable  if  Burghley  would  later  have  succeeded  in 
securing  the  succession  of  his  own  place  and  power  to  his 


THE   EARL   OF   SOUTHAMPTON     175 

son,  Sir  Robert  Cecil.  Preposterous  as  it  may  seem,  when 
judged  from  a  modern  point  of  view,  that  the  personal 
influence  of  this  youth  of  twenty-three  with  the  now  aged 
Queen  should  in  any  serious  measure  have  menaced  the 
firm  power  and  cautious  policies  of  the  experienced  Burghley, 
we  have  abundance  of  evidence  that  he  and  his  son  regarded 
Essex's  growing  ascendancy  as  no  light  matter.  From 
their  long  experience  and  intimate  association  with  Elizabeth, 
and  knowing  her  vanities  and  weaknesses,  as  well  as  her 
strength,  they  apprehended  in  her  increasing  favour  for 
Essex  the  beginning  and  rooting  of  a  power  which  might 
in  time  disintegrate  their  own  solid  foundations.  The 
subtlety,  dissimulation,  and  unrelenting  persistency  with 
which  Burghley  and  his  son  opposed  themselves  to  Essex's 
growing  influence  while  yet  posing  as  his  confidants  and 
well-wishers,  fully  bespeak  the  measure  of  their  fears.  While 
Burghley  himself  lacked  the  polished  manners  and  graceful 
presence  of  the  courtier,  which  so  distinguished  Raleigh, 
Leicester,  and  Essex,  and  owed  his  influence  and  power 
entirely  to  qualities  of  the  mind  and  his  indefatigable 
application  to  business,  he  had  come  to  recognise  the 
importance  of  these  more  ornamental  endowments  in 
securing  and  holding  the  regard  of  Elizabeth.  His  son, 
Sir  Robert  Cecil,  who  was  not  only  puny  and  deformed, 
but  also  somewhat  sickly  all  his  days,  made,  and  could 
make,  no  pretensions  to  courtier-like  graces,  and  must  depend 
for  Court  favour,  to  a  yet  greater  degree  than  his  father, 
upon  his  own  powers  of  mind  and  will.  To  combat  Essex's 
social  influence  at  Court,  these  two  more  clerkly  politicians, 
soon  after  Essex's  appearance,  proceeded  to  supplement 
their  own  power  by  making  an  ally  of  the  accomplished 
Raleigh;  to  whom,  previous  to  this,  they  had  shown  little 


176    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST  YEARS 

favour.  They  soon  succeeded  in  fomenting  a  rivalry  between 
these  two  courtiers  which,  with  some  short  periods  of  truce, 
continued  until  their  combined  machinations  finally  brought 
Essex  to  the  block.  How  Sir  Robert  Cecil,  having  used 
Raleigh  as  a  tool  against  Essex,  in  turn  effected  his  political 
ruin  shall  be  shown  in  due  course. 

We  shall  now  return  to  Southampton  and  to  the  period 
of  his  coming  to  London  and  the  Court,  towards  the  end 
of  October,  in  the  year  1590.  A  recent  biographer  of 
Shakespeare,  writing  of  Southampton,  sums  up  the  incidents 
of  this  period  in  the  following  generalisation :  "It  was 
naturally  to  the  Court  that  his  friends  sent  him  at  an  early 
age  to  display  his  varied  graces.  He  can  hardly  have 
been  more  than  seventeen  when  he  was  presented  to  his 
Sovereign.  She  showed  him  kindly  notice,  and  the  Earl 
of  Essex,  her  brilliant  favourite,  acknowledged  his  fascination. 
Thenceforth  Essex  displayed  in  his  welfare  a  brotherly 
interest  which  proved  in  course  of  time  a  very  doubtful 
blessing."  This  not  only  hurries  the  narrative  but  also 
misconstrues  the  facts  and  ignores  the  most  interesting 
phases  of  the  friendship  between  these  noblemen,  as  they 
influenced  Southampton's  subsequent  connection  with  Shake- 
speare. Essex  may  have  acknowledged  Southampton's 
fascination  at  this  date,  though  I  find  no  evidence  that  he 
did  do  so,  but  for  the  assertion  that  he  "thenceforth"  dis- 
played in  his  welfare  a  brotherly  interest  there  is  absolutely 
no  basis.  All  reasonable  inference,  and  some  actual  evidence, 
lead  me  to  quite  divergent  conclusions  regarding  the 
relations  that  subsisted  between  these  young  noblemen  at 
this  early  date.  Southampton's  interests,  it  is  true,  became 
closely  interwoven  with  those  of  Essex  at  a  somewhat 
later  period  when  he  had  become  enamoured  of  Essex's 


THE   EARL  OF  SOUTHAMPTON     177 

cousin,  Elizabeth  Vernon,  whom  he  eventually  married. 
The  inception  of  this  latter  affair  cannot,  however,  at  the 
earliest,  be  dated  previous  to  the  late  spring  of  1594.  At 
whatever  date  Southampton  and  Essex  became  intimate 
friends,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  such  a  conjunction  was 
contrary  to  Burghletfs  intentions  in  bringing  Southampton 
to  the  Court  in  October  1590.  In  making  use  of  Raleigh 
to  counteract  Essex's  influence  with  the  Queen,  the  Cecils 
were  well  aware,  as  their  subsequent  treatment  of  Raleigh 
proves,  that  they  might  in  him  augment  a  power  which, 
if  opposed  to  their  own,  would  prove  even  more  dangerous 
than  that  of  Essex ;  yet  feeling  the  need  of  a  friend  and 
ally  in  the  more  intimately  social  life  of  the  Court,  whose 
interests  would  be  identical  with  their  own,  they  chose 
what  appeared  to  them  an  auspicious  moment  to  introduce 
their  graceful  and  accomplished  protege*,  and  prospective 
kinsman,  to  the  notice  of  the  Queen,  whose  predilection 
for  handsome  young  courtiers  seemed  to  increase  with 
advancing  age. 

Essex,  although  then  but  in  his  twenty-sixth  year,  had 
spent  nearly  six  years  at  Court.  During  this  period  he  had 
been  so  spoiled  and  petted  by  his  doting  Sovereign  that  he 
had  already  upon  several  occasions  temporarily  turned  her 
favour  to  resentment  by  his  arrogance  and  ill-humour.  In 
his  palmiest  days  even  Leicester  had  never  dared  to  take 
the  liberties  with  the  Queen  now,  at  times,  indulged  in  by 
this  brilliant  but  wilful  youth.  In  exciting  Essex's  hot  and 
hasty  temper  the  watchful  Cecils  soon  found  their  most 
effectual  means  of  defence.  Early  in  the  summer  of  1590, 
Essex,  piqued  by  the  Queen's  refusal  of  a  favour,  committed 
what  was,  up  till  that  time,  his  most  wilful  breach  of  Court 
decorum  and  flagrant  instance  of  opposition  to  the  Queen's 

12 


178    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST  YEARS 

wishes.  Upon  the  6th  of  April  in  that  year  the  office  of 
Secretary  of  State  became  vacant  by  the  death  of  Sir  Francis 
Walsingham.  Shortly  afterward,  Essex  endeavoured  to 
secure  the  office  for  William  Davison,  who,  previous  to  1587, 
had  acted  in  the  capacity  of  assistant  to  Walsingham  and 
was  therefore  presumably  well  qualified  for  the  vacant  post. 
Upon  the  execution  of  Mary,  Queen  of  Scots,  in  1587, 
Elizabeth,  in  disavowing  her  responsibility  for  the  act,  had 
made  a  scapegoat  of  Davison,  who,  she  claimed,  had  secured 
her  signature  to  the  death-warrant  by  misrepresentation, 
and  had  proceeded  with  its  immediate  execution  contrary 
to  her  commands.  Though  she  deceived  no  one  but  herself 
by  this  characteristic  duplicity,  she  never  retreated  from  the 
stand  she  had  taken,  but,  feeling  conscious  that  she  was 
doubted,  to  enforce  belief  in  her  sincerity,  maintained  her 
resentment  against  Davison  to  the  last.  Upon  Elizabeth's 
refusal  of  the  Secretaryship  to  his  luckless  protege*,  Essex, 
in  dudgeon,  absented  himself  from  the  Court,  and  within 
a  few  weeks  chose  a  yet  more  effectual  means  of  exas- 
perating the  Queen  by  privately  espousing  Sir  Francis 
Walsingham's  daughter,  Lady  Sidney,  widow  of  the  re- 
nowned Sir  Philip.  When  knowledge  of  this  latest  action 
reached  the  Queen  her  anger  was  kindled  to  a  degree  that 
(to  the  Court  gossips)  seemed  to  preclude  Essex's  forgiveness, 
or  the  possibility  of  his  reinstatement  in  favour.  With  the 
intention  of  increasing  Essex's  ill-humour  and  still  further 
estranging  him  from  the  Queen,  Burghley  now  proposed  that 
all  his  letters  and  papers  be  seized.  He  also  chose  this  period 
of  estrangement  to  introduce  his  prospective  grandson-in-law^ 
Southampton,  to  the  Court.  The  very  eagerness  of  Essex's 
enemies,  however,  appears  to  have  cooled  the  Queen's  anger, 
as  we  find  that  within  a  month  of  Southampton's  arrival  at 


THE  EARL  OF  SOUTHAMPTON     179 

the  Court — that  is,  on  26th  November — Essex  is  reported  as 
"  once  more  in  good  favour  with  the  Queen." 

In  the  light  of  the  foregoing  facts  and  deductions,  it  does 
not  seem  likely  that  Burghley  would  encourage  a  friendship 
between  Essex  and  Southampton.  The  assumption  that  he 
would  (at  least  tacitly)  seek  rather  to  provoke  a  rivalry  is 
under  the  circumstances  more  reasonable.  Though  I  find 
no  record  in  the  State  Papers  of  this  immediate  date  that 
hostility  was  aroused  between  these  young  courtiers,  in  a 
paper  of  a  later  date,  which  refers  to  this  time,  I  find  fair 
proof  that  such  a  condition  of  affairs  did  at  this  period 
actually  exist.  In  the  declaration  of  the  treason  of  the  Earl 
of  Essex,  1 600- 1,  in  the  State  Papers  we  have  the  following 
passage:  "There  was  present  this  day  at  the  Council,  the 
Earl  of  Southampton,  with  whom  in  former  times  he 
(Essex)  had  been  at  some  emulations  and  differences  at  Court, 
but  after,  Southampton,  having  married  his  kinswoman 
(Elizabeth  Vernon),  plunged  himself  wholly  into  his 
fortunes,"  etc. 

Though  the  matrimonial  engagement  between  Burghley's 
granddaughter  and  Southampton  never  reached  its  consum- 
mation, and  we  have  evidence  in  Roger  Manners'  letter  ot 
6th  March  1592  that  some  doubt  in  regard  to  its  fulfilment 
had  even  then  arisen  in  Court  circles,  we  have  good  grounds 
for  assuming  that  all  hope  for  the  union  was  not  abandoned 
by  Burghley  till  a  later  date.  Lady  Elizabeth  Vere  eventu- 
ally married  the  Earl  of  Derby  in  January  1595.  This 
marriage  was  arranged  for  in  the  summer  of  the  preceding 
year,  and  after  the  Earl  of  Derby  had  come  into  his  titles 
and  estates,  through  the  death  of  his  elder  brother,  in 
April  1594. 

Referring    again    to    the    State    Papers,   we    have    on 


180    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

1 5th  August  1594  the  statement  of  a  Jesuit,  named 
Edmund  Yorke,  who  is  reported  as  saying  "Burghley 
poisoned  the  Earl  of  Derby  so  as  to  marry  his  grand- 
daughter to  his  brother."  Fernando  Stanley,  Earl  of  Derby, 
died  under  suspicious  circumstances  after  a  short  illness,  and 
it  was  reported  at  the  time  that  he  was  poisoned.  As  he 
had  recently  been  instrumental  in  bringing  about  the 
execution  of  a  prominent  Jesuit,  whom  he  had  accused  of 
having  approached  him  with  seditious  proposals,  it  was 
believed  at  the  time  that  an  emissary  of  that  society  was 
concerned  in  his  death.  While  disregarding  Yorke's 
atrocious  imputation  against  Burghley,  we  may  safely  date 
the  inception  of  the  negotiations  leading  to  Elizabeth  Vere's 
marriage  somewhere  after  i6th  April,  the  date  of  the  preced- 
ing Earl's  death ;  Burghley  did  not  choose  younger  sons  in 
marriage  for  his  daughters  or  granddaughters.  Thus  we 
are  fully  assured  that,  at  however  earlier  a  date  the  prospects 
for  a  marriage  between  Southampton  and  Lady  Vere  were 
abandoned,  they  had  ceased  to  be  entertained  by  the  early 
summer  of  1594.  Shortly  after  this,  Southampton's  infatua- 
tion for  Elizabeth  Vernon  had  its  inception.  The  intensity 
of  the  young  nobleman's  early  interest  in  this  latter  affair 
quite  precludes  the  necessity  for  Shakespeare's  poetical 
incitements  thereto;  we  may  therefore  refer  the  group  of 
sonnets,  in  which  Shakespeare  urges  his  friend's  marriage, 
to  the  more  diffident  affair  of  the  earlier  years  and  to  a 
period  antedating  the  publication  of  Venus  and  Adonis  in 
May  1593.  A  comparison  of  the  argument  of  Venus  and 
Adonis  with  that  of  the  first  book  of  Sonnets  will  indicate  a 
common  date  of  production,  and  that  Shakespeare  wrote 
both  poems  with  the  same  purpose  in  view. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

JOHN   FLOR1O   AS   SIR  JOHN 
FALSTAFFS   ORIGINAL 

PROBABLY    the   most    remarkable    and    interesting 
aesthetic  study  of  a   single    Shakespearean   character 
ever  produced   is   Maurice   Morgann's  Essay  on   the 
Dramatic  Character  of  Sir  John  Falstaff,  which  was  written 
in  1774,  and  first  published  in   1777.     This  excellent  piece 
of  criticism    deserves    a   much    wider   cognizance  than    it 
has    ever    attained;    only   three   editions   have   since   been 
issued. 

Morgann's  Essay  was  originally  undertaken  in  jest,  in 
order  to  disprove  the  assertion  made  by  an  acquaintance 
that  Falstaff  was  a  coward ;  but,  inspired  by  his  subject,  it 
was  continued  and  finished  in  splendid  earnest.  As  his 
analysis  of  the  character  of  Falstaff  becomes  more  intimate 
his  wonder  grows  at  the  concrete  human  personality  he 
apprehends.  Falstaff  ceases  to  be  a  fictive  creation,  or  the 
mere  dramatic  representation  of  a  type,  and  takes  on  a 
distinctive  individuality.  He  writes  : 

"The  reader  will  not  now  be  surprised  if  I  affirm  that 
those  characters  in  Shakespeare,  which  are  seen  only  in  part, 
are  yet  capable  of  being  unfolded  and  understood  in  the 
whole ;  every  part  being  in  fact  relative,  and  inferring  all  the 
rest.  It  is  true  that  the  point  of  action  or  sentiment,  which 

181 


182    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST    YEARS 

we  are  most  concerned  in,  is  always  held  out  for  our  special 
notice.  But  who  does  not  perceive  that  there  is  a  peculiarity 
about  it,  which  conveys  a  relish  of  the  whole  ?  And  very 
frequently,  when  no  particular  point  presses,  he  boldly  makes 
a  character  act  and  speak  from  those  parts  of  the  composi- 
tion, which  are  inferred  only,  and  not  distinctly  shewn. 
This  produces  a  wonderful  effect ;  it  seems  to  carry  us 
beyond  the  poet  to  nature  itself,  and  give  an  integrity  and 
truth  to  facts  and  character,  which  they  would  not  otherwise 
obtain.  And  this  is  in  reality  that  art  in  Shakespeare, 
which  being  withdrawn  from  our  notice,  we  more  emphatic- 
ally call  nature.  A  felt  propriety  and  truth  from  causes 
unseen,  I  take  to  be  the  highest  point  of  Poetic  composition. 
If  the  characters  of  Shakespeare  are  thus  whole,  and  as  it  were 
original,  while  those  of  almost  all  other  writers  are  mere 
imitation,  it  may  be  fit  to  consider  them  rather  as  Historic 
than  Dramatic  beings;  and,  when  occasion  requires,  to 
account  for  their  conduct  from  the  whole  of  character,  from 
general  principles,  from  latent  motives,  and  from  policies 
not  avowed." 

Morgann  was  closer  to  the  secret  of  Shakespeare's  art 
than  he  realised ;  he  had  really  penetrated  to  the  truth 
without  knowing  it.  The  reason  that  his  fine  analytical 
sense  had  led  him  to  feel  that  "  it  may  be  fit  to  consider 
them  rather  as  Historic  than  Dramatic  beings "  is  the  fact 
that  in  practically  every  instance  where  a  very  distinctive 
Shakespearean  character,  such  as  Falconbridge,  Falstaff, 
Armado,  Malvolio,  and  Fluellen,  acts  and  speaks  "  from  those 
parts  of  the  composition,  which  are  inferred  only,  and  not 
distinctly  shewn,"  the  characters  so  apprehended  may  be 
shown  by  the  light  of  contemporary  social,  literary,  or 
political  records  to  have  been,  in  some  measure,  a  reflection 
of  a  living  model.  Shakespeare  had  literally,  in  his  own 
phrase,  held  "  the  mirror  up  to  nature  " ;  the  reflection,  how- 


FALSTAFF'S   ORIGINAL  183 

ever,  being  heightened  and  vivified  by  the  infusion  of  his 
own  rare  sensibility,  and  the  power  of  his  dramatic  genius. 

With  all  his  genius  Shakespeare  was  yet  mortal,  and 
human  creativeness  cannot  transcend  nature.  What  we  call 
creativeness,  even  in  the  greatest  artists,  is  but  a  fineness  of 
sensibility  and  cognition,  or  rather  recognition,  coupled  with 
the  power  to  express  what  they  see  and  feel  in  nature. 

As  a  large  number  of  Shakespeare's  plays  were  written 
primarily  for  private  or  Court  presentation,  to  edify  or  amuse 
his  patron  and  his  patron's  friends,  or  with  their  immediate 
political  or  factional  interests  in  mind  to  influence  the  Court 
in  their  favour,  the  shadowed  purposes  of  such  plays,  the 
acting  or  speaking  of  a  character  "  from  those  parts  of  the 
composition,  which  are  inferred  only,  and  not  distinctly 
shewn,"  as  well  as  a  number  of  hitherto  supposedly  inexplic- 
able asides  and  allusions,  such  as  Bottom's  "reason  and 
love  keep  little  company  together  nowadays ;  the  more  the 
pity,  that  some  honest  neighbours  will  not  make  them 
friends,"  would  give  to  those  acquaintances  who  were  in 
Shakespeare's  confidence  an  added  zest  and  interest  in 
such  plays  quite  lacking  to  the  uninitiated,  or  to  a  modern 
audience. 

I  propose  in  this  chapter  to  demonstrate  the  facts  that 
John  Florio — the  translator  of  Montaigne's  Essays  and  tutor 
of  languages  to  Shakespeare's  patron,  the  Earl  of  South- 
ampton— was  Shakespeare's  original  for  Sir  John  Falstaff 
and  other  of  his  characters ;  that  the  Earl  of  Southampton 
and  Lady  Southampton  were  cognizant  of  the  shadowed 
identity,  and  that  Florio  himself  recognised  and  angrily 
resented  the  characterisation  when  a  knowledge  of  its 
personal  application  had  spread  among  their  mutual 
acquaintances. 


184    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST    YEARS 

In  preceding  chapters  and  in  former  books l  I  have 
advanced  evidence  of  a  cumulative  nature  for  Southampton's 
identity  as  the  patron  addressed  in  the  Sonnets  ;  the  identity 
of  Chapman  as  the  "  rival  poet,"  and  Shakespeare's  caricature 
of  him  as  Holofernes ;  the  identity  of  Matthew  Roydon  as 
the  author  of  Willobie  his  Avisa,  as  well  as  Shakespeare's 
caricature  of  him  as  the  curate  Nathaniel ;  and  the  identity 
of  Mistress  Davenant  as  the  "  dark  lady "  of  the  Sonnets. 
If,  then,  we  find  in  the  same  plays  in  which  these  personal 
reflections  are  shown  a  certain  distinctly  marked  type  of 
character,  bearing  stronger  prima  facie  evidence  than  the 
others  of  having  been  developed  from  a  living  original,  may 
we  not  reasonably  infer  that  the  individual  so  represented 
might  also  have  been  linked  in  life  in  some  manner  approxi- 
mating to  his  relations  in  the  play,  with  the  lives  and 
interests  of  the  other  persons  shadowed  forth  ? 

With  this  idea  in  mind  I  have  searched  all  available 
records  relating  to  Southampton,  in  the  hope  of  finding 
among  his  intimates  an  individual  whose  personality  may 
have  suggested  Shakespeare's  characterisation,  or  caricature, 
set  forth  in  the  successive  persons  of  Armado,  Parolles, 
and  Sir  John  Falstaff.  The  traceable  incidents  of  John 
Florio's  life,  his  long  and  intimate  association  with  Shake- 
speare's patron,  and  reasonable  inferences  for  the  periods 
where  actual  record  of  him  is  wanting,  gave  probability,  in 
my  judgment,  to  his  identity  as  Shakespeare's  original  for 
these  and  other  characters.  A  further  consideration  of  the 
man's  personality,  temperament,  and  mental  habitude,  as 
I  could  dimly  trace  them  in  his  few  literary  remains 
that  afford  scope  for  unconscious  self-revelation,  left  no 

1  Shakespeare  and  the  Rival  Poett  1903  ;    Mistress  Davenant ',  the  Dark  Lady 
of  Shakespeare's  Sonnets ;  1913. 


FALSTAFF'S   ORIGINAL  185 

doubt  in  my  mind  as  to  his  identity  as  Shakespeare's 
model. 

Supposing  it  to  be  impossible,  with  our  present  records, 
to  visualise  Shakespeare  more  definitely  in  his  contemporary 
environment,  it  has  been  common  with  biographers,  in  their 
endeavours  to  link  him  with  the  men  of  his  times,  to  draw 
imaginative  pictures  of  his  intimate  and  friendly  personal 
relations  with  such  men  as  Sir  Walter  Raleigh,  Bacon, 
Chapman,  Marston,  and  others,  equally  improbable,  forgetting 
the  social  distinctions,  the  scholastic  prejudices,  and  still 
more,  the  religious  or  political  animosities  that  divided  men 
in  public  life  in  those  days,  as  they  do,  though  in  a  lesser 
degree,  to-day.  The  intimate  relations  of  the  Earl  of 
Southampton  with  Lord  Burghley,  during  the  earliest  period 
of  his  Court  life,  when  he  was  affianced  to  Burghley's  grand- 
daughter, and  his  later  intimacy  with  the  Earl  of  Essex  and 
with  the  gentlemen  of  the  Essex  faction,  coupled  with 
Shakespeare's  sympathy  with  the  cause  of  his  patron  and 
his  patron's  friends,  must  be  borne  in  mind  in  any  endeavour 
that  is  made  to  trace  in  the  plays  either  Shakespeare's 
political  leanings  or  his  probable  affiliations  with,  or 
antagonisms  to,  his  early  contemporaries.  The  natural 
jealousies  that  would  arise  between  the  followers,  dependants, 
or  proteges  of  a  liberal  patron  must  also  be  considered. 

John  Florio  became  connected,  in  the  capacity  of  Italian 
tutor,  with  the  Earl  of  Southampton  late  in  the  year  1590, 
or  early  in  1591,  shortly  after  his  coming  to  Court,  and 
a  little  before  Southampton  first  began  to  show  favour 
to  Shakespeare.  We  have  Florio's  own  statement  for  the 
fact  that  he  continued  in  Southampton's  "  pay  and  patron- 
age" at  least  as  late  as  1598,  in  which  year  he  published 
his  Worlde  of  Wordes.  Whether  or  not  he  continued  in 


186    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

Southampton's  service  after  this  date  is  uncertain,  but  we 
may  safely  impute  to  that  nobleman's  good  offices  the 
favour  shown  to  him  by  James  I.  and  his  Queen  in  1604, 
and  later. 

From  the  first  time  that  Shakespeare  and  Florio  were 
thrown  together,  through  their  mutual  connection  with 
Southampton,  in  or  about  1591,  down  to  the  year  1609, 
when  the  Sonnets  were  issued  at  the  instigation  of  Shake- 
speare's literary  rivals,  I  find  intermittent  traces  of  antagonism 
between  them,  and  also  of  Florio's  intimacy  and  sympathy 
with  Chapman  and  his  friends.  In  later  years,  Chapman, 
Jonson,  and  Marston,  however,  seem  to  have  recognised  in 
Florio  an  unstable  ally,  and  tacitly  to  have  regarded  him  as 
a  selfish  and  shifty  opportunist.  Florio  appears  to  have 
used  his  intimacy  with  Southampton,  and  his  knowledge  of 
that  nobleman's  relations  with  Shakespeare  and  the  "  dark 
lady  "  in  1593  to  1594,  to  the  poet's  disavantage,  by  imparting 
intelligence  of  the  affair  to  Chapman  and  Roydon,  the  latter 
of  whom  exploited  this  knowledge  in  the  production  of 
Willobie  his  Avisa. 

In  Chapman's  dedication  to  Roydon  of  The  Shadow  of 
Night  in  1 594,  he  shows  knowledge  of  the  fact  that  Shake- 
speare was  practically  reader  to  the  Earl  of  Southampton, 
and  that  he  passed  his  judgment  upon  literary  matter  sub- 
mitted to  that  nobleman.  Referring  to  Shakespeare,  Chap- 
man writes :  "  How  then  may  a  man  stay  his  marvailing 
to  see  passion-driven  men,  reading  but  to  curtail  a  tedious 
hour,  and  altogether  hidebound  with  affection  to  great  men's 
fancies,  take  upon  them  as  killing  censures  as  if  they  were 
judgment's  butchers,  or  as  if  the  life  of  truth  lay  tottering  in 
their  verdicts."  This  reference  to  Shakespeare  as  "  passion- 
driven  "  refers  to  the  affair  of  the  "  dark  lady,"  upon  which 


FALSTAFF'S   ORIGINAL  187 

Chapman's  friend,  Roydon,  was  then  at  work  in  Willobie  his 
Avisa.  Florio,  in  later  years,  as  shall  appear,  also  makes  a 
very  distinct  point  at  Shakespeare  as  a  "reader."  Unless 
there  was  an  enemy  in  Shakespeare's  camp  to  report  to 
Chapman  and  Roydon  the  fact  of  his  "  reading "  to  curtail 
tedious  hours  for  his  patron,  and  to  convey  intelligence  to 
Roydon  of  Shakespeare's  and  Southampton's  relations  with 
the  "  dark  lady,"  either  by  reporting  the  affair  or  by  bringing 
Shakespeare's  earlier  MS.  books  of  sonnets  to  his  notice,  it  is 
improbable  that  these  men  would  have  had  such  intimate 
knowledge  of  the  incidents  and  conditions  of  this  stage  of 
Shakespeare's  friendship  with  his  patron.  Florio  probably 
fostered  the  hostility  of  these  scholars  to  Shakespeare  by 
imputing  to  his  influence  their  ill-success  in  winning  South- 
ampton's favour.  It  is  not  improbable  that  for  his  own  pro- 
tection he  secretly  used  his  influence  with  Southampton  in 
defeating  their  advances  while  posing  as  their  friend  and 
champion.  Shakespeare  distrusted  Florio  from  the  begin- 
ning of  his  acquaintance,  and  deprecated  his  influence  upon 
his  patron. 

In  the  earlier  stages  of  Shakespeare's  observation  of  Florio 
he  appears  to  have  been  more  amused  than  angered,  but  as 
the  years  pass  his  dislike  grows,  as  he  sees  more  clearly  into 
the  cold  selfishness  of  a  character,  obscured  to  his  earlier 
and  more  casual  view  by  the  interesting  personality  and 
frank  and  humorous  worldly  wisdom  of  the  man.  However 
heightened  and  amplified  by  Shakespeare's  imagination  the 
characterisation  of  Falstaff  may  now  appear,  a  consideration 
of  the  actual  character  of  Florio,  as  we  find  it  revealed 
between  the  lines  of  his  own  literary  productions,  and  in  the 
few  contemporary  records  of  him  that  have  survived,  suggests 
on  Shakespeare's  part  portrayal  rather  than  caricature. 


188    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST  YEARS 

Assuming  for  the  present  that  Shakespeare  has  character- 
ised, or  caricatured,  Florio  as  Parolles,  Armado,  and  Falstaff, 
the  first  and  second  of  these  characters  are  represented  in 
plays  originally  produced  in,  or  about,  1592,  but  reflecting 
the  spirit  and  incidents  of  the  Cowdray  and  Tichfield  pro- 
gress of  the  autumn  of  1591.  While  these  plays  were  altered 
at  a  later  period,  or  periods,  of  revision,  it  is  apparent  that 
both  characters  pertain  in  a  large  measure  to  the  plays  in 
their  earlier  forms.  If  Shakespeare  used  Florio  as  his  model 
for  these  characters,  we  have  added  evidence  that  by  the 
autumn  of  1591  Florio  had  already  entered  the  "pay  and 
patronage"  of  Southampton,  who  about  this  period,  under 
his  tuition  and  in  anticipation  of  continental  travel,  developed 
his  knowledge  of  Italian  and  French.  In  his  dedication  of  the 
Worlde  of  Wordes  to  Southampton  in  1598,  Florio  writes: 

"  In  truth  I  acknowledge  an  entire  debt,  not  only  of  my 
best  knowledge,  but  of  all,  yea  of  more  than  I  know  or  can, 
to  your  bounteous  Lordship,  most  noble,  most  virtuous,  and 
most  Honourable  Earl  of  Southampton,  in  whose  pay  and 
patronage  I  have  lived  some  years,  to  whom  I  owe  and  vow 
the  years  I  have  to  live." 

Further  on  in  this  dedication  he  refers  to  Southampton's 
study  of  Italian  under  his  tuition  as  follows : 

"  I  might  make  doubt  least  I  or  mine  be  not  now  of  any 
further  use  to  your  self-sufficiencie,  being  at  home  so  instructed 
in  Italian  as  teaching  or  learning  could  supply  that  there 
seemed  no  need  of  travell,  and  now  by  travell  so  accomplished 
as  what  wants  to  perfection  ?  " 

Alfs  Well  that  Ends  Well,  in  its  earlier  form  of  Loves 
Labours  Won,  reflects  the  spirit  and  incidents  of  the  Queen's 
progress  to  Tichfield  House  in  September  1591 ;  the  widowed 


FALSTAFF'S   ORIGINAL  189 

Countess  of  Rousillon  personifies  the  widowed  Countess  of 
Southampton;  the  wise  and  courtly  Lafeu  the  courtly  Sir 
Thomas  Heneage,  who  within  three  years  married  the 
Countess  of  Southampton.  I  have  suggested  that  Bertram 
represented  Southampton,  and  that  his  coolness  towards 
Helena,  and  his  proposed  departure  for  the  French  Court, 
reflects  Southampton's  disinclination  to  the  marriage  with 
Elizabeth  Vere,  and  the  fact  of  his  departure  shortly  after- 
wards for  France.  In  Florio,  who  was  at  that  time  attached 
to  the  Earl  of  Southampton's  establishment,  and  presumably 
was  present  upon  the  occasion  of  the  progress  to  Tichfield, 
we  have  the  prototype  of  Parolles,  though  much  of  the 
present  characterisation  of  that  person,  while  referring  to 
the  same  original,  undoubtedly  pertains  to  a  period  of  later 
time  revision,  which  on  good  evidence  I  date  in,  or  about, 
the  autumn  of  1598,  at  which  period  Shakespeare's  earlier 
antipathy  had  grown  by  knowledge  and  experience  into 
positive  aversion. 

In  1591  Southampton  was  still  a  ward  in  Chancery,  and 
the  management  of  his  personal  affairs  and  expenditures 
under  the  supervision  of  Lord  Burghley,  to  whose  grand- 
daughter he  was  affianced.  It  is  evident  then  that  when 
Florio  was  retained  in  the  capacity  of  tutor,  or  bear-leader, 
and  with  the  intention  of  having  him  accompany  the  young 
Earl  upon  his  continental  travels,  his  selection  for  the  post 
would  be  made  by  Burghley — Southampton's  guardian — 
who  in  former  years  had  patronised  and  befriended  Florio's 
father. 

In  Lafeu's  early  distrust  of  Parolles'  pretensions,  and  his 
eventual  recognition  of  his  cowardice  and  instability,  I 
believe  we  have  a  reflection  of  the  attitude  of  Sir  Thomas 
Heneage  towards  Florio,  and  a  suggestion  of  his  disapproval 


190    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

of  Florio's  intimacy  with  Southampton.  This  leads  me  to 
infer  that  though  Lady  Southampton  and  Heneage  appar- 
ently acquiesced  in,  and  approved  of,  Burghley's  marital 
plans  for  Southampton,  secretly  they  were  not  displeased  at 
their  miscarriage. 

When  Southampton  first  came  to  Court  he  was  a  fresh 
and  unspoiled  youth,  with  high  ideals  and  utterly  unacquainted 
with  the  ethical  latitude  and  moral  laxity  of  city  and  Court 
life.  In  bringing  him  to  Court  and  the  notice  of  the  Queen, 
and  at  the  same  time  endeavouring  to  unite  his  interests 
with  his  own  by  marriage  with  his  granddaughter,  Burghley 
hoped  that — as  in  the  case  of  his  son-in-law,  the  Earl  of 
Oxford,  some  years  before — Southampton  would  become  a 
Court  favourite,  and  possibly  supplant  Essex  in  the  Queen's 
favour,  as  the  Earl  of  Oxford  had  for  a  while  threatened  to 
displace  Leicester.  The  ingenuous  frankness  and  independ- 
ence of  the  young  Earl,  however,  appeared  likely  to  defeat 
the  plans  of  the  veteran  politician.  Burghley  now  resolved 
that  he  must  broaden  his  prot^ge^s  knowledge  of  the  world 
and  adjust  his  ideals  to  Court  life.  He  accordingly  engaged 
the  sophisticated  and  world-bitten  Florio  as  his  intellectual 
and  moral  mentor.  I  do  not  find  any  record  of  Southampton's 
departure  for  France  immediately  after  the  Cowdray  pro- 
gress, but  it  is  apparent  either  that  he  accompanied  the  Earl 
of  Essex  upon  that  nobleman's  return  to  his  command  in 
France  after  a  short  visit  to  England  in  October  1591,  or 
that  he  followed  shortly  afterwards.  Essex  was  recalled 
from  France  in  January  1592  (new  style),  and  on  2nd  March 
of  the  same  year  we  have  a  letter  dated  at  Dieppe  from 
Southampton  to  Essex  in  England,  which  shows  that 
Southampton  was  with  the  army  in  France  within  a  few 
months  of  the  Cowdray  progress. 


FALSTAFF'S   ORIGINAL  191 

Conceiving  both  Parolles  and  Falstaff  to  be  caricatures 
of  Florio  I  apprehend  in  the  military  functions  of  these 
characters  a  reflection  of  a  probable  quasi-military  experience 
of  their  original  during  his  connection  with  Southampton 
in  the  year  1592. 

An  English  force  held  Dieppe  for  Henry  IV.  in  March 
1592,  awaiting  reinforcements  from  England  to  move 
against  the  army  of  the  League,  which  was  encamped  near 
the  town.  If  Southampton  took  Florio  with  him  at  this 
time  it  is  quite  likely  that  he  had  him  appointed  to  a 
captaincy,  though  probably  not  to  a  command.  Captain 
Roger  Williams,  a  brave  and  capable  Welsh  officer  (whom 
I  have  reason  to  believe  was  Shakespeare's  original  for  the 
Welsh  Captain  Fluellen  in  Henry  V.),  joined  the  army  at  the 
end  of  this  month,  bringing  with  him  six  hundred  men.  In 
a  letter  to  the  Council,  upon  his  departure  from  England, 
he  writes  sarcastically  of  the  number  and  inefficiency  of  the 
captains  being  made.  This  letter  is  so  characteristic  of  the 
man,  and  so  reminiscent  of  blunt  Fluellen,  that  I  shall  quote 
it  in  full. 

"  Moste  Honorables,  yesterdaie  it  was  your  Lordship's 
pleasure  to  shewe  the  roll  of  captaines  by  their  names. 
More  then  half  of  them  are  knowen  unto  me  sufficient  to 
take  charges;  a  greate  number  of  others,  besides  the  rest 
in  that  roll,  although  not  knowen  unto  me,  maie  be  as 
sufficient  as  the  others,  perhapps  knowen  unto  menn  of  farr 
better  judgment  than  myselfe.  To  saie  truthe,  no  man 
ought  to  meddle  further  than  his  owne  charge.  Touching 
the  three  captaines  that  your  Lordships  appointed  to  go 
with  me,  I  knowe  Polate  and  Coverd,  but  not  the  thirde. 
There  is  one  Captaine  Polate,  a  Hampshire  man,  an  honest 
gentleman,  worthie  of  good  charge.  There  is  another  not 
worthie  to  be  a  sergeant  of  a  band,  as  Sir  John  Norris 


192    SHAKESPEARE'S    LOST   YEARS 

knows,  with  many  others;  and  I  do  heare  by  my  Lord 
of  Sussex  it  is  he.  Captain  Coverd  is  worthie,  but  not 
comparable  unto  a  dozen  others  that  have  no  charge;  but 
whatsoever  your  Lordships  direct  unto  me,  I  muste  accept, 
and  will  do  my  best  endeavour  to  discharge  my  dutie 
towards  the  service  comitted  unto  me.  But  be  assured  that 
the  more  new  captaines  that  are  made,  the  more  will  begg, 
I  meane  will  trouble  her  Majestic  after  the  warrs,  unless  the 
olde  be  provided  for.  I  must  confess  I  wrote  effectual  for 
one  Captaine  Smithe  unto  Sir  Philipp  Butler;  two  of  the 
name  Sir  John  Norris  will  confess  to  be  well  worthie  to 
commande,  at  the  least,  three  hundred  men  a-piece.  He 
that  I  named,  my  desire  is  that  he  may  be  one  of  myne. 
I  protest,  on  my  poore  credytt,  I  never  delt  with  her  Majestic 
concerning  any  of  those  captaines,  nor  anything  that  your 
Lordships  spake  yesterday  before  me ;  but  true  it  is,  I  spake 
before  the  Earle  of  Essex  and  Sir  John  Norris,  it  was  pittie 
that  young  captaines  should  be  accepted  and  the  old  refused. 
True  it  is  that  I  toulde  them  also  that  the  lieutenants  of 
the  shire  knew  not  those  captaines  so  well  as  ourselves.  On 
my  creditt,  my  meaning  was  the  deputies  lieutenants,  the 
which,  as  it  was  toulde  me,  had  made  all  these  captaines. 
My  speeches  are  no  lawe,  nor  scarce  good  judgment,  for  the 
warrs  were  unknowen  to  me  22  yeres  agon.  Notwith- 
standing, it  shall  satisfie  me,  that  the  greatest  generalls 
in  that  time  took  me  to  be  a  souldier,  for  the  which  I  will 
bring  better  proofs  than  any  other  of  my  qualitie  shall  deny. 
Humbly  desiring  your  Lordships'  accustomed  good  favor 
towards  me,  I  reste  to  spend  my  life  alwaies  at  her 
Majestie's  pleasure,  and  at  your  Lordships'  devotion. 
(2;th  March  1591.)" 

Within  a  short  period  of  the  arrival  of  Sir  Roger  Williams 
he  had  dispersed  the  enemy  and  opened  up  the  road  to  the 
suburbs  of  Paris  ;  which  city  was  then  held  by  the  combined 
forces  of  the  League  and  the  Spanish.  I  cannot  learn 


FALSTAFF'S   ORIGINAL          193 

whether  Southampton  accompanied  the  troops  in  the 
proposed  attack  on  Paris  or  continued  his  travels  into  the 
Netherlands  and  Spain.  Some  verses  in  Willobie  his  Aviso, 
suggest  such  a  tour  at  this  time.  He  was  back  in  England, 
however,  by  September  1592,  when  he  accompanied  the 
Queen  and  Court  to  Oxford.  It  is  probable  that  Florio 
accompanied  the  Earl  of  Southampton  upon  this  occasion, 
and  that  the  nobleman's  acquaintance  with  the  mistress 
of  the  Crosse  Inn,  the  beginning  of  which  I  date  at  this 
time,  was  due  to  his  introduction.  Florio  lived  for  many 
years  at  Oxford  and  was  undoubtedly  familiar  with  its 
taverns  and  tavern  keepers.1 

In  depicting  Parolles  as  playing  Pander  for  Bertram,  and 
at  the  same  time  secretly  pressing  his  own  suit,  I  am  con- 
vinced that  Shakespeare  caricatured  Florio's  relations  with 
Southampton  and  the  "  dark  lady."  It  is  not  unlikely  that 
Florio  is  included  by  Roydon  in  Willobie  his  Aviso,  among 
A  visa's  numerous  suitors. 

The  literary  history  of  All's  Well  that  Ends  Well,  aside 
from  internal  considerations,  suggests  that  it  was  not  com- 
posed originally  for  public  performance,  nor  revised  with  the 
public  in  mind.  It  appeared  in  print  for  the  first  time  in 
the  Folio  of  1623,  and  it  is  practically  certain  that  no  earlier 
edition  was  issued.  If  we  except  Meres'  mention  of  the 
play,  Loves  Labour's  Won,  in  1598,  the  earliest  reference 
we  have  to  All's  Well  that  Ends  Well  is  that  in  the 
Stationers'  Registers  dated  8th  November  1623,  where  it 
is  recorded  as  a  play  not  previously  entered  to  other  men. 

1  While  correcting  proof  sheets  for  this  book  I  have  found  evidence  that  Florio 
was  living  in  Oxford,  and  already  married  in  September  1585.  The  Register  of 
St.  Peter's  in  the  Baylie  in  Oxford  records  the  baptism  of  Joane  Florio,  daughter 
of  John  Florio,  upon  the  24th  of  September  in  that  year.  Wood's  City  of 
Oxford,  vol.  iii.  p.  258.  Ed.  by  Andrew  Clark. 

13 


194    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

There  is  no  record  of  its  presentation  during  Shakespeare's 
lifetime. 

Though  the  old  play  of  Love's  Labour's  Won  mentioned 
by  Meres  has  been  variously  identified  by  critics,  the 
consensus  of  judgment  of  the  majority  is  in  favour  of  its 
identification  as  All's  Well  that  Ends  Well.  In  no  other 
of  Shakespeare's  plays — even  in  instances  where  we  have 
actual  record  of  revision — can  we  so  plainly  recognise  by 
internal  evidence  both  the  work  of  his  "  pupil "  and  of  his 
master  pen.  As  I  have  assigned  the  original  composition 
of  this  play  to  the  year  1592,  regarding  it  as  a  reflection 
of  the  Queen's  progress  to  Tichfield  House  and  of  the 
incidents  of  the  Earl  of  Southampton's  life  at,  and  following, 
that  period,  so  I  infer  and  believe  I  can  demonstrate  that 
its  revision  reflects  the  same  personal  influences  under  new 
phases  in  later  years. 

In  February  1598  the  Earl  of  Southampton  left  England 
for  the  French  Court  with  Sir  Robert  Cecil.  He  returned 
secretly  in  August  and  was  married  privately  at  Essex 
House  to  Elizabeth  Vernon,  whose  condition  had  recently 
caused  her  dismissal  from  the  Court.  Southampton  re- 
turned to  France  as  secretly  as  he  had  come,  but  knowledge 
of  his  return  and  of  his  unauthorised  marriage  reaching  the 
Queen,  she  issued  an  order  for  his  immediate  recall,  and 
upon  his  return  in  November  committed  him,  and  even 
threatened  to  commit  his  wife  (who  was  now  a  mother),  to  the 
Fleet.  It  is  not  unlikely  that  Florio  accompanied  Southamp- 
ton to  France  upon  this  visit,  and  that  much  of  Shakespeare's 
irritation  at  this  time  arose  from  Southampton's  neglect 
or  coolness,  which  he  supposed  to  be  due  to  Florio's  increas- 
ing influence,  to  which  Shakespeare  also  imputed  much  of 
the  young  Earl's  ill-regulated  manner  of  life  at  this  period. 


FALSTAFF'S   ORIGINAL  195 

In  the  happy  ending  of  Helena's  troubles,  and  in 
Bertram's  recognition  of  his  moral  responsibility  and  marital 
obligations,  and  also  in  the  significant  change  of  the  title 
of  this  play  from  Love's  Labour's  Won  to  All's  Well  that 
Ends  Well,  we  have  Shakespeare's  combined  reproof  and 
approval  of  Southampton's  recent  conduct  towards  Elizabeth 
Vernon,  as  well  as  a  practical  reflection  of  the  actual  facts 
in  their  case. 

At  about  this  time,  in  addition  to  the  revision  of  All's 
Well  that  Ends  Well,  I  date  the  first  production,  though 
not  the  original  composition,  of  Troilus  and  Cressida,  and  also 
the  final  revision  of  Love's  Labour's  Lost.  In  this  latter  play 
the  part  taken  by  Armado  was,  I  believe,  enlarged  and  revised, 
as  in  the  case  of  Parolles  in  Atfs  Well  that  Ends  Well,  to  suit 
the  incidents  and  characterisation  to  Shakespeare's  developed 
knowledge  of,  and  experience  with,  Florio.  There  are  several 
small  but  significant  links  of  description  between  the  Parolles 
of  1598  and  the  enlarged  Armado  of  the  same  date.  Both  of 
these  characters  are  represented  as  braggart  soldiers  and  also 
as  linguists,  which  evidently  reflect  Florio's  quasi-military 
connection  with  Southampton  and  his  known  proficiency 
in  languages. 

In  Act  IV.  Scene  iii.  Parolles  is  referred  to  as  "  the  manifold 
linguist  and  armipotent  soldier."  In  Love's  Labour's  Lost, 
in  Act  I.  Scene  i.,  in  lines  that  palpably  belong  to  the  play  in 
its  earliest  form,  Armado  is  described  as  "  a  man  of  fire- 
new  words."  He  is  also  represented  as  a  traveller  from 
Spain.  In  Act  V.  Scene  ii.,  in  lines  that  pertain  to  the  revision 
of  1598,  he  is  made  to  take  the  soldier's  part  again,  in  giving 
him  the  character  of  Hector  in  The  Nine  Worthies.  In  this 
character  Armado  is  made  to  use  the  peculiar  word  "  armi- 
potent "  twice.  It  is  significant  that  this  word  is  never  used 


196    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

by  Shakespeare  except  in  connection  with  Armado  and 
Parolles.  In  giving  Armado  the  character  of  Hector,  I  am 
convinced  that  Shakespeare  again  indicates  Florio's  military 
experience.  In  the  lines  which  Armado  recites  in  the 
character  of  Hector,  Shakespeare  intentionally  makes  his 
personal  point  at  Florio  more  strongly  indicative  by  allud- 
ing to  the  name  Florio  by  the  word  "  flower,"  in  the  inter- 
rupted line  with  which  Hector  ends  his  verses. 

ARM.    Peace  ! 

"  The  armipotent  Mars,  of  lances  the  almighty, 
Gave  Hector  a  gift,  the  heir  of  Ilion  ; 
A  man  so  breathed,  that  certain  he  would  fight  ye 
From  morn  till  night,  out  of  his  pavilion. 
I  am  that  flower, " 

He  reinforces  his  indication  by  Dumain's  and  Longaville's 
interpolations — "That  mint,"  "That  columbine."  Florio 
undoubtedly  indicated  this  meaning  to  his  own  name  in 
entitling  his  earliest  publication  First  Fruites  and  a  later 
publication  Second  Fruites.  In  a  sonnet  addressed  to  him 
by  some  friend  of  his  who  signs  himself  "  Ignoto,"  his  name 
is  also  referred  to  in  this  sense.  In  his  Italian-English 
dictionary,  published  in  1598,  he  does  not  include  the  word 
Florio.  In  the  edition  of  1611,  however,  he  includes  it,  but 
states  that  it  means,  "  A  kind  of  bird."  In  using  the  word 
"columbine"  Shakespeare  gives  the  double  meaning  of  a 
flower  and  also  a  bird.  Florio  used  a  flower  for  his  emblem, 
and  had  inscribed  under  his  portrait  in  the  1611  edition  of 
his  Worlde  of  Wordes : 

"  Floret  adhuc  et  adhuc  florebit 
Florius  haec  specie  floridus  op  tat  amans." 

The  frequent  references  to  the  characters   of  the  Iliad 
in  this  act  and  scene  of  Love's  Labours  Lost  link  the  period 


FALSTAFF'S   ORIGINAL  197 

of  its  insertion  with  the  date  of  the  original  composition 
of  Troilus  and  Cressida  in,  or  about,  1598,  to  which  time  I 
have  also  assigned  the  revision  of  Love's  Labour's  Won  into 
Airs  Well  that  Ends  Well,  and  the  development  of  Parolles 
into  a  misleader  of  youth. 

Another  phase  of  Act  V.  Scene  ii.  of  Love's  Labour's  Lost 
appears  to  be  a  reflection  of  an  affair  in  the  life  of  the 
individual  whom  Shakespeare  has  in  mind  in  the  delineation 
of  the  characters  of  Armado  and  Sir  John  Falstaff.  Costard 
accuses  Armado  regarding  his  relations  with  Jaquenetta. 

COST.  The  party  is  gone,  fellow  Hector,  she  is  gone  ;  she  is  two  months  on 
her  way. 

ARM.    What  meanest  thou  ? 

COST.  Faith,  unless  you  play  the  honest  Trojan,  the  poor  wench  is  cast 
away  :  she's  quick  ;  the  child  brags  in  her  belly  already  :  'tis  yours. 

ARM.    Dost  thou  infamonize  me  among  potentates  ? 

Precisely  similar  conditions  are  shown  to  exist  in  the 
relations  between  Falstaff  and  Doll  Tearsheet,  in  the  Second 
Part  of  Henry  I V.,  in  which  play  there  are  also  allusions  to 
the  characters  of  the  Iliad,  which  link  its  composition  with 
the  same  period  as  Troilus  and  Cressida ;  and  an  allusion  to 
The  Nine  Worthies  that  apparently  link  it  in  time  with  the 
final  revision  of  Love's  Labour's  Lost  late  in  1 598. 

ACT  V.  SCENE  iv. 
Enter  BEADLES  dragging  in  Hostess  QUICKLY  and  DOLL  TEARSHEET. 

HOST.  No,  thou  arrant  knave  ;  I  would  to  God  that  I  might  have  thee 
hanged  :  thou  hast  drawn  my  shoulder  out  of  joint. 

FIRST  BEAD.  The  constables  have  delivered  her  over  to  me  :  and  she 
shall  have  whipping-cheer  enough  I  warrant  her  :  there  hath  been  a  man  or  two 
lately  killed  about  her. 

DOL.  Nut-hook,  nut-hook,  you  lie.  Come  on  ;  I'll  tell  thee  what,  thou 
damned  tripe-visaged  rascal,  and  the  child  I  now  go  with  miscarry,  thou  wert 
better  thou  hadst  struck  thy  mother,  thou  paper-faced  villain. 

HOST.  O  the  Lord,  that  Sir  John  were  come  !  he  would  make  this  a  bloody 
day  to  somebody.  But  I  pray  God  the  fruit  of  her  womb  miscarry. 


198    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

The  natural  sequel  to  the  conditions  so  plainly  indicated 
in  the  passages  quoted  from  the  lately  revised  Love's  Labour's 
Lost,  regarding  Jaquenetta  and  Armado,  and  from  the 
recently  written  Henry  IV.  in  reference  to  Doll  Tearsheet 
and  Falstaff,  is  reported  in  due  time  in  a  postscript  to  a  letter 
written  by  Elizabeth  Vernon,  now  Lady  Southampton,  on 
8th  July  1599,  to  her  husband,  who  was  in  Ireland  with 
Essex.  She  writes  from  Chartley : 

"  All  the  nues  I  can  send  you  that  I  thinke  will  make  you 
mery  is  that  I  reade  in  a  letter  from  London  that  Sir  John 
Falstaff  is  by  his  Mistress  Dame  Pintpot  made  father  of  a 
godly  millers  thum  a  boye  thats  all  heade  and  very  litel 
body :  but  this  is  a  secret." 

Here  we  have  record  that  Shakespeare's  patron,  and  his 
patron's  wife,  knew  that  Falstaff  had  a  living  prototype 
who  was  numbered  among  their  acquaintances.  That  the 
birth  of  this  child  was  not  in  wedlock  is  suggested  by  the 
concluding  words  of  the  Countess's  letter  "but  this  is  a 
secret." 

The  identification  of  Florio  as  the  original  caricatured  as 
Parolles  and  Falstaff  has  never  been  anticipated,  though 
some  critics  have  noticed  the  basic  resemblances  between 
these  two  characters  of  Shakespeare's.  Parolles  has  been 
called  by  Schlegel,  "  the  little  appendix  to  the  great  Falstaff." 

A  few  slight  links  in  the  names  of  characters  have  led 
some  commentators  to  date  a  revision  of  All's  Well  that  Ends 
Well  at  about  the  same  time  as  that  of  the  composition  of 
Measure  for  Measure  and  Hamlet.  While  the  links  of 
subjective  evidence  I  have  adduced  for  one  revision  in,  or 
about,  the  autumn  of  1598,  and  at  the  same  period  as  that 
of  the  composition  of  the  Second  Part  of  Henry  IV.,  of  the 


FALSTAFF'S   ORIGINAL  199 

final  revision  of  Love's  Labours  Lost,  and  shortly  after  the 
production  of  Troilus  and  Cressida,  in  1 598,  are  fairly  con- 
clusive, a  consideration  of  the  characterisation  of  Falstaff  in 
the  First  Part  of  Henry  IV.  and  of  the  evidence  usually 
advanced  for  the  date  of  the  composition  of  this  play  will 
elucidate  this  idea. 

The  First  Part  of  Henry  IV.  in  its  present  form  belongs 
to  a  period  shortly  preceding  the  date  of  its  entry  in  the 
Stationers'  Registers,  in  February  1598.  I  am  convinced 
that  it  was  published  at  this  time  with  Shakespeare's 
cognizance,  and  that  he  revised  it  with  this  intention  in 
mind.  All  inference  and  evidence  assign  the  composition 
of  the  Second  Part  of  Henry  I V.  to  some  part  of  the  year 
1598.  It  is  unlikely,  however,  that  it  was  included  in  Meres' 
mention  of  Henry  IV.  in  his  Palladis  Tamia,  which  was 
entered  on  the  Stationers'  Registers  in  September  of  that 
year.  If  the  link  between  Doll  Tearsheet's  condition  and 
the  similar  affair  reported  in  Lady  Southampton's  letter  in 
July  1599  be  connected  in  intention  with  the  same  con- 
ditions reflected  in  the  case  of  Armado  and  Jaquenetta,  its 
date  of  production  is  palpably  indicated,  as  is  also  the  final 
revision  of  Love's  Labour's  Lost  in  about  December  1598. 
Both  of  these  plays  were  probably  presented — the  Second 
Part  of  Henry  IV.  for  the  first  time,  and  Love's  Labour's 
Lost  for  the  first  time  in  its  final  form — for  the  Christmas 
festivities  at  Court,  in  1598.  While  the  Quarto  of  Love's 
Labours  Lost  is  dated  as  published  in  1598,  there  is  no 
record  of  its  intended  publication  in  the  Stationers'  Registers. 
It  must  be  remembered,  however,  that  all  publications  issued 
previous  to  the  25th  of  March  1599  would  be  dated  1598. 

A  comparison  of  the  two  parts  of  Henry  IV.  under  the 
metrical  test,  while  clearly  showing  Part  I.  as  an  earlier 


200    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

composition,  yet  approximates  their  dates  so  closely  in  time 
as  to  suggest  a  comparatively  recent  and  thorough  revision 
of  the  earlier  portion  of  the  play  in  1597  or  1598.  It  is  plain, 
however,  that  Shakespeare's  Henry  IV.,  Part  /.,  held  the 
boards  in  some  form  for  several  years  before  this  date.  The 
numerous  contemporary  references,  under  the  name  of  Sir 
John  Oldcastle,  to  the  character  now  known  as  Falstaff, 
evidences  on  the  part  of  the  public  such  a  settled  familiarity 
with  this  same  character,  under  the  old  name,  as  to  suggest 
frequent  presentations  of  Shakespeare's  play  in  the  earlier 
form.  The  Oldcastle  of  The  Famous  Victories  of  Henry  V. 
has  no  connection  whatever  with  the  characterisation  of 
Falstaff. 

Though  the  metrical  evidences  of  so  early  a  date  are 
now  obscured  by  the  drastic  revision  of  the  autumn  of 
1597,  or  spring  of  1598,  I  am  of  the  opinion  that  Henry  IV., 
Part  /.,  as  it  was  originally  written,  belongs  to  a  period 
antedating  the  publication  of  Willobie  his  Avisa  in  1594, 
and  that  it  was  composed  late  in  1593,  or  early  in  1594. 
I  am  led  to  this  conclusion  by  the  underlying  thread  of 
subjective  evidence  linking  the  plays  of  this  period  with 
the  affairs  of  Southampton  and  his  connections.  It  is 
unlikely  that  Shakespeare  would  introduce  that  "sweet 
wench"  my  "Young  Mistress  of  the  Tavern"  into  a  play 
after  the  publication  of  the  scandal  intended  by  Roy  don 
in  1594,  and  probable  that  he  altered  the  characterisation 
of  the  hostess  to  the  old  and  widowed  Mistress  Quickly 
in  the  Second  Part  of  Henry  IV.  for  this  reason. 

Believing  that  Love's  Labour's  Won — i.e.  Alfs  Well  that 
Ends  Well  in  its  earlier  form — reflects  Southampton  in 
the  person  of  Bertram,  and  Florio  as  Parolles,  I  have 
suggested  that  the  military  capacity  of  the  latter  character 


FALSTAFF'S   ORIGINAL  201 

infers  a  temporary  military  experience  of  Florio's  in  the 
year  1592.  It  is  evident  that  most  of  the  matter  in  this 
play  following  Act  IV.  Scene  iii.  belongs  to  the  period  of 
revision  in  1598.  In  Act  IV.  Scene  iii.  we  have  what  was 
apparently  Parolles'  final  appearance  in  the  old  play  of 
1592;  here  he  has  been  exposed,  and  his  purpose  in  the 
play  ended. 

FIRST  SOLDIER.  You  are  undone,  Captain,  all  but  your  scarf;  that  has 
a  knot  on't  yet. 

PAROLLES.    Who  cannot  be  crushed  with  a  plot  ? 

FIRST  SOLDIER.  If  you  could  find  out  a  country  where  women  were 
that  had  received  so  much  shame,  you  might  begin  an  impudent  nation.  Fare 
ye  well,  Sir  ;  I  am  for  France  too  ;  we  shall  speak  of  you  there. 

[Exit  Soldiers. 

PAROLLES.    Yet  am  I  thankful :  if  my  heart  were  great, 

'Twould  burst  at  this.     Captain,  I'll  be  no  more ; 

But  I  will  eat  and  drink,  and  sleep  as  soft 

As  captain  shall  :  simply  the  thing  I  am 

Shall  make  me  live.     Who  knows  himself  a  braggart, 

Let  him  fear  this,  for  it  will  come  to  pass 

That  every  braggart  shall  be  found  an  ass. 

Rust  sword  !  cool  blushes  !  and,  Parolles,  live 

Safest  in  shame,  being  fool'd,  by  foolery  thrive. 

There's  place  and  means  for  every  man  alive. 

1*11  after  them. 

[Exit. 

The  resolution  he  here  forms  augurs  for  the  future  a 
still  greater  moral  deterioration.  He  resolves  to  seek  safety 
in  shame;  to  thrive  by  foolery;  and,  though  fallen  from 
his  captaincy,  to 

"  eat  and  drink,  and  sleep  as  soft  as  captain  shall." 

When  Shakespeare  resumed  his  plan  of  reflecting  Florio's 
association  with  Southampton,  in  the  First  Part  of  Henry  IV. 
he  recalled  the  state  of  mind  and  morals  in  which  he  had 
left  him  as  Parolles  in  Love's  Labour's  Won,  and  allowing 
for  a  short  lapse  of  time,  and  the  effects  of  the  life  he  had 


202    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

resolved    to    live,   introduces   him   in    Henry  IV.,   Part   I. 
Act  I.  Scene  ii.,  as  follows: 

FAL.    Now,  Hal,  what  time  of  day  is  it,  lad  ? 

PRINCE.  Thou  art  so  fat-witted,  with  drinking  of  old  sack  and  unbuttoning 
thee  after  supper  and  sleeping  upon  benches  after  noon,  that  thou  hast  forgotten 
to  demand  that  truly  which  thou  would'st  truly  know.  What  a  devil  hast  thou 
to  do  with  the  time  of  the  day  ?  Unless  hours  were  cups  of  sack,  and  minutes 
capons,  and  clocks  the  tongues  of  bawds,  and  dials  the  signs  of  leaping-houses, 
and  the  blessed  sun  himself  a  fair  hot  wench  in  flame-coloured  taffeta,  I  see  no 
reason  why  thou  should'st  be  so  superfluous  to  demand  the  time  of  day. 

In  Parolles  and  Falstaff  we  have  displayed  the  same 
lack  of  moral  consciousness,  the  same  grossly  sensuous 
materialism,  and  withal,  the  same  unquenchable  optimism 
and  colossal  impudence. 

When  we  remember  that  though  Shakespeare  based  his 
play  upon  the  old  Famous  Victories  of  Henry  V.  and  took 
from  it  the  name  Oldcastle,  that  the  actual  characterisation 
of  his  Oldcastle — Falstaff — has  no  prototype  in  the  original, 
the  abrupt  first  entry  upon  the  scene  of  this  tavern-lounger 
and  afternoon  sleeper-upon-benches,  as  familiarly  addressing 
the  heir  apparent  as  "  Hal "  and  "  lad,"  supplies  a  good  in- 
stance of  Shakespeare's  method — noticed  by  Maurice  Morgann 
— of  making  a  character  act  and  speak  from  those  parts  of  the 
composition  which  are  inferred  only  and  not  distinctly  shown  ; 
but  to  the  initiated,  including  Southampton  and  his  friends, 
who  knew  the  bumptious  self-sufficiency  of  Shakespeare's 
living  model,  and  who  followed  the  developing  characterisa- 
tion from  play  to  play,  the  effect  of  such  bold  dramatic 
strokes  must  have  been  irresistibly  diverting. 

It  is  difficult  now  to  realise  the  avidity  with  which  such 
publications  as  Florio's  First  and  Second  Fruites  were 
welcomed  from  the  press  and  read  by  the  cultured,  or 
culture-seeking,  public  of  his  day.  Italy  being  then  regarded 


FALSTAFF'S   ORIGINAL  203 

as  the  centre  of  culture  and  fashion  a  colloquial  knowledge 
of  Italian  was  a  fashionable  necessity.  A  reference  in  a 
current  play  to  an  aphorism  of  Florio's  or  to  a  characteristic 
passage  from  the  proverbial  philosophy  of  which  he 
constructs  his  Italian-English  conversations,  which  would 
pass  unnoticed  now,  would  be  readily  recognised  by  a 
fashionable  Elizabethan  audience. 

When  Shakespeare,  through  the  utterances  of  the  prince, 
characterises  Falstaff  by  suggestion  upon  his  first  appearance 
in  the  play  in  the  following  lines : 

"Thou  art  so  fat-witted,  with  drinking  of  old  sack  and  unbuttoning  thee 
after  supper  and  sleeping  upon  benches  after  noon,  that  thou  hast  forgotten 
to  demand  that  truly  which  thou  would'st  truly  know," 

for  the  benefit  of  his  initiated  friends  he  links  up  and 
continues  Florio's  characterisation  as  Parolles  and  Falstaff, 
and  in  the  remainder  of  the  passage, 

"What  a  devil  hast  thou  to  do  with  the  time  of  the  day?  Unless  hours 
are  cups  of  sack,  and  minutes  capons,  and  clocks  the  tongues  of  bawds,  and 
dials  the  signs  of  leaping-houses,  and  the  blessed  sun  himself  a  fair  hot  wench 
in  flame-coloured  taffeta," 

suggests  Florio's  character  from  his  own  utterances  in  the 
Second  Fruites,  where  one  of  the  characters  holds  forth  as 
follows : 

"As  for  me,  I  never  will  be  able,  nor  am  I  able,  to  be  willing  but  to 
love  whatsoever  pleaseth  women,  to  whom  I  dedicate,  yield,  and  consecrate 
what  mortal  thing  soever  I  possess,  and  I  say,  that  a  salad,  a  woman  and  a 
capon,  as  yet  was  never  out  of  season." 

A  consideration  of  certain  of  the  divergences  between 
the  dramatis  personce  of  the  First  Part  of  Henry  IV.  and 
the  Second  Part  of  Henry  IV.>  made  in  the  light  of  the 
thread  of  subjective  evidence  in  the  plays  of  the  Sonnet 
period,  may  give  us  some  new  clues  in  determining  the 
relative  periods  of  their  original  composition. 


204    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

In  the  First  Part  of  Henry  IV.  the  hostess  of  the  tavern 
is  referred  to  as  a  young  and  beautiful  woman  in  Act  I. 
Scene  ii.,  as  follows : 

FALSTAFF.   .  .  .  And  is  not  my  hostess  of  the  tavern  a  most  sweet  wench  ? 

PRINCE.        As  the  honey  of  Hybla,  my  old  lad  of  the  castle. 

And  is  not  a  buff  jerkin  a  most  sweet  robe  of  durance  ? 

FAL.  How  now,  how  now,  mad  wag  !  what,  in  thy  quips  and  quiddities  ? 

What  a  plague  have  I  to  do  with  a  buff  jerkin  ? 

PRINCE.         Why,  what  a  pox  have  I  to  do  with  my  hostess  of  the  tavern  ? 

FAL.  Well,  thou  hast  called  her  to  a  reckoning  many  a  time  and  oft. 

PRINCE.        Did  I  ever  call  for  thee  to  pay  thy  part  ? 

FAL.  No,  I'll  give  thee  thy  due,  thou  hast  paid  all  there. 

PRINCE.        Yes,  and  elsewhere,  so  far  as  my  coin  would  stretch  ;  and  where  it 
would  not,  I  have  used  my  credit. 

FAL.  Yea,  and  so  used  it  that,  were  it  not  here  apparent  that  thou  art 

heir  apparent— but,  I  prithee,  sweet  wag,  shall  there  be 
gallows  standing  in  England  when  thou  art  king?  And 
resolution  thus  fobbed  as  it  is  with  the  rusty  curb  of  old  father 
antic  the  law?  Do  not  thou,  when  thou  art  king,  hang  a 
thief. 

FalstafFs  impertinent  and  suggestive  reference  to  the 
prince's  intimacy  with  the  hostess,  not  being  taken  well,  he 
quickly  gives  the  conversation  a  turn  to  cover  up  the  mis- 
take he  finds  he  has  made.  It  is  palpable  that  the  character- 
isation of  the  hostess  in  the  First  Part  of  Henry  IV.>  in  its 
original  form,  was  not  the  same  as  that  presented  in  the 
Second  Part  of  this  play  in  which  she  is  represented  as 
Mistress  Quickly,  an  old,  unattractive,  and  garrulous  widow. 
In  the  First  Part  of  Henry  IV.  she  is  mentioned  only  once 
as  Mistress  Quickly.  In  Act  III.  Scene  iii.  the  prince 
addresses  her  under  this  name  and  inquires  about  her 
husband. 

PRINCE.    What  sayest  thou,   Mistress  Quickly?     How  doth  thy  husband?    I 
love  him  well ;  he  is  an  honest  man. 

This  single  mention  of  the  hostess  as  Mistress  Quickly 
is  evidently  an  interpolation  made  at  the  period  of  the 


FALSTAFF'S   ORIGINAL          205 

revision  of  this  play  late  in  1597,  or  early  in  1598.  It  is  also 
probable  that  the  revision  at  this  time  was  made  with  the 
intention  of  linking  the  action  of  the  First  Part  to  the 
Second  Part  of  the  play,  the  outline  of  which  Shakespeare 
was  probably  planning  at  that  time. 

The  dramatic  time  of  the  First  Part  of  the  play  has  been 
estimated  as  at  the  outside  covering  a  period  of  three  months, 
and  of  the  Second  Part,  a  period  of  two  months.  No  long 
interval  is  supposed  to  have  elapsed  between  the  action  of 
the  two  parts ;  yet,  in  the  First  Part  of  the  play  the  hostess 
is  young,  attractive,  and  has  a  husband.  In  the  Second  Part, 
she  is  old,  unattractive,  and  is  a  widow.  This  divergence 
is  evidently  to  be  accounted  for  by  the  fact  that  the  First 
Part  of  Henry  IV.  in  its  earliest,  and  unrevised,  form  was 
written,  not  long  after  the  composition  of  Love's  Labour's 
Won  (All's  Well  that  Ends  Well  in  its  early  form),  and 
during  the  estrangement  between  Southampton  and  Shake- 
speare in  1594,  caused  by  the  nobleman's  relations  with  the 
"  dark  lady,"  that  "  most  sweet  wench,"  "  my  hostess  of  the 
tavern." 

I  have  indicated  a  certain  continuity  and  link  of  character- 
isation between  Parolles,  as  we  leave  him  in  All's  Well  that 
Ends  Well,  and  Falstaff,  as  we  first  encounter  him  in  the 
First  Part  of  Henry  IV.  I  shall  now  demonstrate  parallels 
between  the  characterisation  of  Falstaff  in  the  First  Part  of 
Henry  IV.,  and  the  tone  and  spirit  of  the  conversations 
between  the  imaginary  characters  of  Florio's  Second  Fruites. 
Fewer  resemblances  are  to  be  found  between  the  Second 
Fruites  and  the  Second  Part  of  Henry  IV.  From  this  I 
infer  that  when  Shakespeare  composed  the  First  Part  of 
Henry  IV.  in  its  original  form,  his  personal  acquaintance 
with  Florio  was  recent  and  limited,  and  that  he  developed 


206    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST    YEARS 

his  characterisation  of  Falstaff  in  that  portion  of  the  play 
largely  from  Florio's  self-revelation  in  the  Second  Fruites, 
and  that  in  continuing  this  characterisation  later  on,  in 
the  Second  Part  of  the  play,  he  reinforced  it  from  a 
closer  personal  observation  of  the  idiosyncrasies  of  his 
prototype. 

The  Earl  of  Southampton,  who  was  shadowed  forth  as 
Bertram  in  Love's  Labour's  Won,  with  Parolles  as  his  factotum, 
— representing  Florio  in  that  capacity, — becomes  the  prince 
in  Henry  IV.,  while  Florio  becomes  Falstaff.  The  First 
Part  of  the  play  in  its  original  form  reflected  their  connection 
and  the  affair  of  the  "dark  lady  "in  1593-94-  The  First 
Part  of  Henry  IV.,  in  its  revised  form,  and  the  Second  Part 
of  Henry  IV.  reflect  a  resumed,  or  a  continued,  familiarity 
between  Southampton  and  Florio  in  1598.  This  leads  me  to 
infer  that  Florio  may  again  have  accompanied  Southampton 
when  he  left  England  with  Sir  Robert  Cecil  for  the  French 
Court  in  February  1598,  in  much  the  same  capacity  as  he 
had  served  him  on  his  first  visit  to  France  in  1592,  when 
they  were  first  reflected  as  Bertram  and  Parolles. 

In  the  original  development  of  the  characterisation  of 
Parolles,  Armado,  and  Falstaff,  I  am  convinced  that  Shake- 
speare worked,  not  only  from  observation  of  his  prototype 
in  their  daily  intercourse,  but  that  he  also  studied  Florio's 
mental  and  moral  angles  and  literary  mannerisms  in  his 
extant  productions.  If  Armado's  letters  to  Jaquenetta  and 
to  the  King  be  compared  with  Florio's  dedication  of  his 
Second  Fruites — which  was  published  in  1591,  several  months 
preceding  the  original  composition  of  Love's  Labour's  Lost — 
and  also  with  his  "  Address  to  the  Reader,"  a  similitude  will 
be  found  that  certainly  passes  coincidence.  A  comparison 
of  Parolles1  and  Falstaff's  opportunist  and  materialistic 


FALSTAFF'S   ORIGINAL          207 

philosophy  with  Florio's  outlook  on  life  as  we  find  it 
unconsciously  exhibited  in  his  Second  Fruites,  reveals  a 
characteristic  unity  that  plainly  displays  intentional  parody 
on  Shakespeare's  part. 

Didactic  literature  seldom  presents  the  real  character  and 
workaday  opinions  and  beliefs  of  a  writer.  The  teacher 
generally  speaks  from  a  height  transcending  his  ordinary 
levels  of  thought  and  action.  In  Florio's  Second  Fruites  his 
intention  is  didactic  only  in  relation  to  imparting  a  colloquial 
knowledge  of  Italian.  In  this  endeavour  he  arranges  a 
series  of  twelve  conversations  on  matters  of  everyday  life 
between  imaginary  characters,  who  are,  presumably,  of 
about  the  same  social  quality  as  his  usual  pupils — the 
younger  gentry  of  the  time.  In  these  talks  his  intention 
was  to  be  entirely  natural  and  to  reproduce,  what  he  con- 
ceived to  be,  ordinary  conversation  between  gentlemen  of 
fashion.  In  doing  this  he  reveals  ethics,  manners,  and 
morals  of  a  decidedly  Falstaffian  flavour.  The  gross  and 
satyr-like  estimate  of  women  he  displays ;  his  primping  enjoy- 
ment of  apparel ;  the  gusto  with  which  he  converses  of  things 
to  eat  and  drink — of  ale,  and  wine,  and  capons  ;  his  distrust 
of  the  minions  of  the  law;  his  knowledge  and  horror  of 
arrest  and  imprisonment,  and  his  frankly  animal  zest  of  life, 
all  suggest  Shakespeare's  knowledge  of  the  book  as  well  as 
the  man. 

As  Florio's  Second  Fruites  is  not  easily  accessible  to  the 
general  reader,  a  few  extracts  may  serve  to  exhibit  the 
characteristic  resemblances  to  Shakespeare's  delineation  of 
Falstaff. 

The  twelve  chapters  of  the  work  are  headed  as  follows : 

The  first  chapter,  "  Of  rising  in  the  morning  and  of  things 
belonging  to  the  chamber  and  to  apparel." 


208    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

The  second,  "  For  common  speech  in  the  morning  between 
friends ;  wherein  is  described  a  set  of  tennis." 

The  third,  "  Of  familiar  morning  communication  ;  wherein 
many  courtesies  are  handled,  and  the  manner  of  visiting  and 
saluting  the  sick,  and  of  riding,  with  all  that  belongeth  to  a 
horse." 

The  fourth  chapter,  "  Wherein  is  set  down  a  dinner  for 
six  persons,  between  whom  there  fall  many  pleasant  discourses 
concerning  meat  and  repast." 

The  fifth,  "  Wherein  discourse  is  held  of  play  and  many 
things  thereto  appertaining,  a  game  of  primero  and  of  chess." 

The  sixth  chapter,  "Concerning  many  familiar  and 
ceremonious  compliments  among  six  gentlemen  who  talk  of 
many  pleasant  matters,  but  especially  of  divers  necessary, 
profitable,  civil,  and  proverbial  receipts  for  a  traveller." 

The  seventh,  "  Between  two  gentlemen  who  talk  of  arms, 
and  of  the  art  of  fencing,  and  of  buying  and  selling." 

The  eighth  chapter,  "  Between  James,  and  Lippa,  his  man, 
wherein  they  talk  of  many  pleasant  and  delightsome  jests, 
and  in  it  is  described  an  unpleasant  lodging,  an  informed  old 
woman,  also  the  beautiful  parts  that  a  woman  ought  to  have 
to  be  accounted  fair  in  all  perfection,  and  pleasantly  blazoned 
a  counterfeit  lazy  and  naught-worth  servant." 

The  ninth,  "  Between  Caezar  and  Tiberio ;  wherein  they 
discourse  of  news  of  the  Court,  of  courtiers  of  this  day,  and 
of  many  other  matters  of  delight." 

The  tenth  chapter,  "  Between  gentlemen  and  a  servant ; 
wherein  they  talk  of  going  to  supper,  and  familiar  speech  late 
in  the  evening." 

The  eleventh,  "  Wherein  they  talk  of  going  to  bed,  and 
many  things  thereto  belonging." 

The  twelfth,  "Wherein  proverbially  and  pleasantly  dis- 
course is  held  of  love  and  women." 

He  makes  one  of  his  characters  end  this  last  chapter  as 
follows : 


FALSTAFF'S   ORIGINAL          209 

"  As  for  me,  I  never  will  be  able,  nor  am  I  able,  to  be 
willing  but  to  love  whatsoever  pleaseth  women,  to  whom 
I  dedicate,  yield,  and  consecrate  what  mortal  thing  soever  I 
possess,  and  I  say,  that  a  salad,  a  woman,  and  a  capon  as  yet 
was  never  out  of  season." 

The  remarkable  resemblance  between  the  sentiments  here 
expressed  and  the  characteristics  attributed  to  Falstaff  by 
Prince  Henry  in  the  passage  quoted  above  from  Henry  IV.> 
Act  I.  Scene  ii.,  suggest  Shakespeare's  knowledge  of  the 
Second  Fruites. 

He  describes  the  wardrobe  of  a  man  of  fashion  with 
envious  unction,  giving  a  minute  inventory  of  his  shirts, 
handkerchiefs,  ruffs,  cuffs,  towels,  quoises,  shoes,  buskins, 
daggers,  swords,  gloves,  doublets,  jerkins,  gowns,  hats,  caps, 
and  boots.  The  very  superabundance  recalling,  by  contrast, 
the  paucity  in  this  regard  in  the  cases  of  Armado  and 
Falstaff. 

The  philosophy  of  his  conversations  is  selfish  and  worldly- 
wise  to  a  degree,  with  nowhere  the  slightest  suggestion  of 
ideality  or  altruism. 

"T.  From  those  that  I  do  trust,  good  Lord  deliver  me,  from  such  as  I 
mistrust,  I'll  harmless  come  to  be. 

G.  He  gives  me  so  many  good  words  I  cannot  fail  but  trust  him. 

T.  Wot  you  not  that  fair  words  and  foul  deeds  are  wont  to  make  both  fools 
and  wise  men  fain. 

G.  I  know  it,  but  if  he  beat  me  with  a  sword,  I  will  beat  him  again  with  a 
scabbard. 

T.  What,  will  you  give  him  bread  for  cake  then  ? 

G.  If  any  man  wrong  thee,  wrong  him  again,  or  else  be  sure  to  remember  it." 

In  the  conversation  concerning  meats  and  repast  he  is 
Gargantuan  in  his  descriptions. 

"  S.  The  meat  is  coming  in,  let  us  set  down. 
C.  I  would  wash  first  if  it  were  not  to  trouble  Robert. 
S.  What,  ho  !    Bring  some  water  to  wash  our  hands. 
ROBERT.  Here  it  is  fresh  and  good  to  drinke  for  a  neede. 

14 


210    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

H.  God  hath  made  water  for  other  things  than  to  drinke. 
C.  Hast  thou  not  heard  that  water  rots,  not  only  men,  but  stakes  ? 
R,  Yet  men  say  that  water  was  made  to  drinke,  to  saile,  and  to  wash. 
M.  It  was  good  to  drinke  when  men  did  eat  acornes. 

T.  I  pray  you  set  down  for  I  have  a  good  stomach. 
N.  As  for  a  good  stomach,  I  do  yield  a  jot  unto  you. 
S.  My  masters,  the  meat  cooles. 

S.  My  masters,  sit  down  ;  every  man  take  his  place. 

N.  Tush,  I  pray  you,  sit  down. 

C.  With  obliging  you  I  shall  show  myself  unmannerly. 

H.  Of  courtesie,  Master  M.,  sit  here  between  us  two. 

M.  Virtue  consists  in  the  midst  quothe  the  devil  when  he  found  himself 
between  two  nuns. 

S.  Bring  hither  that  salad,  those  steaks,  that  leg  of  mutton,  that  piece  of  beef 
with  all  the  boiled  meats  we  have. 

S.  I  pray  you,  every  man  serve  himself,  let  everyone  cut  where  he  please, 
and  seek  the  best  morsels. 

N.  Truly  these  meats  are  very  well  seasoned. 

S.  Call  for  drinke  when  you  please,  and  what  kind  of  wine  you  like  best. 

N.  Give  me  some  wine  but  put  some  water  in  it. 

S.  You  may  well  enough  drinke  it  pure,  for  our  wines  are  all  borne  under  the 
sign  of  Aquarius. 

M.  Do  you  not  know  that  wine  watered  is  esteemed  a  vile  thing  ? 

C.  Give  me  a  cup  of  beere,  or  else  a  bowl  of  ale. 

S.  I  pray  you,  do  not  put  that  sodden  water  into  your  bellie. 

C.  I  like  it  as  well  as  wine,  chiefly  this  hot  weather. 

T.  He  that  drinks  wine  drinks  blood,  he  that  drinks  water  drinks  fleame 
(phlegm). 

H.  I  love  to  drink  wine  after  the  Dutch  fashion. 

T.  How  do  they  drinke  it,  I  pray  you  ? 

H.  In  the  morning,  pure  ;  at  dinner,  without  water,  and  at  night  as  it  comes 
from  the  vessel. 

M.  I  like  this  rule  ;  they  are  wise,  and  God's  blessing  light  upon  them. 

H.  A  slice  of  bacon  would  make  us  taste  this  wine  well. 

S.  What,  ho  !  set  that  gammon  of  bacon  on  the  board. 

M.  God  be  thanked,  I  am  at  a  truce  with  my  stomach. 

T.  In  faith,  I  would  stay  until  the  bells  do  ring. 

S.  You  were  not  fasting  then  when  you  came  here  ? 

M.  I  had  only  drunk  a  little  Malmslie. 

T.  And  I  a  good  draught  of  Muscatine,  and  eat  a  little  bread. 

S.  Bring  the  meat  away,  in  God's  name. 

R.  The  meat  is  not  enough  yet. 


FALSTAFF'S   ORIGINAL          211 

S.  Take  away  that  empty  pot,  set  some  bread  upon  the  table  and  put  some 
salt  in  the  salt  cellar,  and  make  roome  for  the  second  messe. 

R.  Now,  comes  the  roast. 

S.  Welcome  may  with  his  flowers. 

T.  And  good  speed  may  our  barke  have. 

S.  The  Jews  do  not  look  for  their  Messias  with  more  devotion  than  I  have 
looked  for  the  roast  meat. 

S.  Set  that  capon  upon  the  table,  and  those  chickens,  those  rabbits,  and  that 
hen,  that  goose ;  those  woodcock,  those  snipes,  those  larks,  those  quails,  those 
partridges,  those  pheasants  and  that  pasty  of  venison. 

R.  Here  is  everything  ready. 

N.  You  have  led  us  to  a  wedding. 

S.  I  pray  you,  cut  up  that  hen,  I  pray  God  it  be  tender. 

C.  Alas,  I  think  she  was  dam  to  the  cock  that  crowed  to  St.  Peter. 

S.  I  thought  that  so  soon  as  I  saw  her. 

N.  I  beseech  you,  sir,  will  you  carve  some  of  that  pheasant  ? 

M.  They  be  offices  that  I  love  to  do. 

N.  I  will  one  day  fill  my  bellie  full  of  them. 

S.  Master  Andrew,  will  it  please  you  to  eat  an  egg  ? 

A.  With  all  my  heart,  sir,  so  be  it  new  laid. 

S.  As  new  as  may  be ;  laid  this  morning. 

A.  I  love  new-laid  eggs  well. 

S.  Sirra,  go  cause  a  couple  of  eggs  to  be  made  readie. 

R.  By  and  by,  will  you  have  them  hard  or  soft  ? 

A.  It  is  no  matter,  I  love  them  better  raire. 

T.  An  egg  of  an  hour,  bread  of  a  day,  kidd  of  a  month,  wine  of  six,  flesh  of 
a  year,  fish  of  ten,  a  woman  of  fifteen,  and  a  friend  of  a  hundred,  he  must  have 
that  will  be  merrie. 

S.  What  aileth  Master  T.  that  he  looks  so  sad  ? 

T.  I  am  not  very  well  at  ease. 

S.  What  feel  you,  where  grieves  it  you  ? 

T.  I  feel  my  stomach  a  little  over-cloyde. 

N.  Shall  I  teach  you  a  good  medicine  ? 

H.  My  mother,  of  happy  memorie,  was  wont  to  tell  me  that  a  pill  of  wheat, 
of  a  hen  the  days  work  sweat,  and  some  vine  juice  that  were  neat  was  best 
physick  I  could  eat. 

M.  Your  mother  was  a  woman  worthy  to  govern  a  kingdom. 

S.  My  masters,  you  see  here  the  period  of  this  poor  dinner  ;  the  best  dish 
you  have  had  hath  been  your  welcome. 

H.  As  that  hath  fed  our  minds  so  have  the  others  fed  our  bodies  well. 

S.  It  grieves  me  that  you  have  been  put  to  such  penance,  but  yet  I  hope  you 
will  excuse  me. 


212    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

C.  If  doing  such  penance  a  man  might  win  heaven,  O  sweet  penance  for  a 
man  to  do  every  day." 

Portions  of  the  sixth  chapter,  with  its  talk  of  divers 
necessary  prophetic  and  proverbial  precepts  for  a  traveller, 
evidently  supplied  Shakespeare  with  the  hint  for  Scene  iv. 
Act  II.  of  the  First  Part  of  Henry  IV.,  between  Falstaff 
and  Prince  Hal,  wherein  Falstaff  personates  the  prince's 
father. 

"S.  Mister  Peeter,  whatsoever  I  shall  tell  you,  according  to  my  wonted 
manner,  I  will  speak  as  plainly  unto  you  as  though  you  were  my  son,  and  there- 
fore pardon  me,  if  I  shall  seem  eyther  too  familiar,  or  too  homely  with  you. 

P.  Say  on  boldly,  for  I  shall  be  very  proud  if  it  please  you  to  account  me  as 
your  child,  and  that  I  may  repute  you  as  my  father. 

S.  First,  my  loving  Mister  Peeter,  if  you  purpose  to  come  unto  the  wished 
end  of  your  travel,  have  always  your  mind  and  thought  on  God." 

This  highly  moral  preamble  is  followed  by  much  ungodly, 
worldly  wisdom. 

"S.  And  if  you  will  be  a  traveller  and  wander  safely  through  the  world, 
wheresoever  you  come  have  always  the  eyes  of  a  falcon  that  you  may  see  far, 
the  ears  of  an  ass  that  you  may  hear  well,  the  face  of  an  ape  that  you  may  be 
ready  to  laugh,  the  mouth  of  a  hog  to  eat  all  things,  the  shoulder  of  a  camel  that 
you  may  bear  anything  with  patience,  the  legs  of  a  stag  that  you  may  flee  from 
dangers,  and  see  that  you  never  want  two  bags  very  full ;  that  is,  one  of  patience, 
for  with  it  a  man  overcomes  all  things,  and  another  of  money,  for, 

They  that  have  good  store  of  crownes, 
Are  called  lordes,  though  they  be  clownes; 

and  gold  hath  the  very  same  virtue  that  charity  hath,  it  covereth  a  multitude  of 
faults,  and  golden  hammers  break  all  locks,  and  golden  meedes  do  reach  all 
heights,  have  always  your  hand  on  your  hat,  and  in  your  purse,  for, 

A  purse  or  cap  used  more  or  less  a  year 
Gain  many  friends,  and  do  not  cost  thee  dear. 

Travelling  by  the  way  in  winter  time,  honour  your  companion,  so  shall 
you  avoid  falling  into  dangerous  places.  In  summer  go  before,  so  shall  not  the 
dust  come  into  your  eyes.  Setting  at  board,  if  there  be  but  little  bread,  hold  it 
fast  in  your  hand,  if  small  store  of  flesh,  take  hold  on  the  bone,  if  no  store  of 
wine,  drink  often,  and  unless  you  be  required,  never  offer  any  man  either 
salt,  etc." 


FALSTAFF'S   ORIGINAL  213 

The  ninth  chapter,  wherein  they  "  plausibly  discourse  of 
news  of  the  Court  and  of  courtiers  of  this  day,  and  of  many 
other  matters  of  delight,"  is  full  of  Falstaffian  paradox,  and  re- 
miniscent of  Justice  Shallow's  relations  with  Jane  Nightwork. 

"C.  What  is  become  of  your  neighbour,  I  mean  the  old  doating  man  grown 
twice  a  child  ? 

T.  As  old  as  you  see  him  he  has  of  late  wedded  a  young  wench  of  fifteen 
years  old. 

C.  Then  he  and  she  will  make  up  the  whole  bible  together ;  I  mean  the  old 
and  new  testament. 

T.  To  an  old  cat  a  young  mouse. 

C.  Old  flesh  makes  good  broth. 

T.  What  has  become  of  his  son  that  I  see  him  not  ? 

C.  He  was  put  in  prison  for  having  beaten  an  enemy  of  his. 

T.  Be  wrong  or  right  prison  is  a  spite. 

C.  A  man  had  need  look  to  himself  in  this  world. 

T.  What  is  become  of  his  fair  daughter  whom  he  married  to  what  you  call 
him  that  was  sometime  our  neighbour  ? 

C.  She  spins  crooked  spindles  for  her  husband  and  sends  him  into  Cornwall 
without  ship  or  boat. 

T.  What,  does  she  make  him  wear  the  stag's  crest  then  ? 

C.  You  have  guessed  right  and  have  hit  the  nail  on  the  head. 

T.  His  blood  is  of  great  force  and  virtue  then. 

C.  What  virtue  can  his  blood  have,  tell  me  in  good  faith  ? 

T.  It  is  good  to  break  diamonds  withal. 

C.  Why,  man's  blood  cannot  break  diamonds. 

T.  Yes,  but  the  blood  of  a  he-goat  will. 

C.  Moreover,  he  may  challenge  to  have  part  in  heaven  by  it. 

T.  What  matter  is  it  for  him  then  to  be  a  he-goat,  or  a  stumpbuck,  or  a 
kid,  or  a  chamois,  a  stag,  or  a  brill,  a  unicorn,  or  an  elephant  so  he  may  be  safe, 
but  how  may  that  be,  I  pray  thee,  tell  me  ? 

C.  I  will  tell  thee,  do  not  you  know  that  whosoever  is  made  a  cuckold  by  his 
wife,  either  he  knows  it,  or  he  knows  it  not. 

T.  That  I  know,  then  what  will  you  infer  upon  it  ? 

C.  If  he  knows  it  he  must  needs  be  patient,  and  therefore  a  martyr,  if  he 
knows  it  not,  he  is  innocent,  and  you  know  that  martyrs  and  innocents  shall  be 
saved,  which  if  you  grant,  it  followeth  that  all  cuckolds  shall  obtain  paradise. 

T.  Methinks  then  that  women  are  not  greatly  to  be  blamed  if  they  seek  their 
husbands'  eternal  salvation,  but  are  rather  to  be  commended  as  causes  of  a  noble 
and  worthy  effect." 

He  speaks  with  evident  feeling  of  one  who  is  imprisoned 
for  debt. 


214    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

"  T.  Take  heed  of  debts  ;  temper  thy  desires,  and  moderate  thy  tongue. 

C.  It  is  a  devilish  thing  to  owe  money. 

T.  For  all  that  he  is  so  proud  that  though  he  have  need  of  patience  he  calleth 
for  revenge. 

C.  Could  not  he  save  himself  out  of  the  hands  of  those  catchpoles,  counter 
guardians,  or  sergeants  ? 

T.  Seeking  to  save  himself  by  flight  from  that  rascality  he  had  almost  left  the 
lining  of  his  cap  behind. 

C.  I  am  sorry  for  his  mischance,  for  with  his  jests,  toys,  fooleries,  and 
pleasant  conceits,  he  would  have  made  Heraclitus  himself  to  burst  his  heart 
with  laughing. 

T.  Did  you  ever  go  see  him  yet  ? 

C.  I  would  not  go  into  prison  to  fetch  one  of  my  eyes  if  I  had  left  it  there. 

T.  Yet  there  be  some  honest  men  there. 

C.  And  where  will  you  have  them  but  in  places  of  persecution  ? 

T.  You  have  reason. 

C.  I  would  not  be  painted  there  so  much  do  I  hate  and  loathe  the 
place." 

Speaking  of  the  Court  and  courtiers  he  says : 

"  C.  The  favours  of  the  Court  are  like  fair  weather  in  winter,  or  clouds  in 
summer,  and  Court,  in  former  time,  was  counted  death. 

T.  It  is  still  Court  for  the  vicious,  but  death  for  the  virtuous,  learned  and 
wise. 

C.  Seven  days  doth  the  Court  regard  a  virtuous  man,  be  he  never  so 
mannerly,  well-brought  up,  and  of  gentle  conditions.  That  is,  the  first  day  he 
makes  a  show  of  himself,  he  is  counted  gold  ;  the  second,  silver ;  the  third, 
copper ;  the  fourth,  tin ;  the  fifth,  lead ;  the  sixth,  dross ;  and  the  seventh, 
nothing  at  all,  whereas  the  contrary  happeneth  of  the  vicious. 

T.  Yet  the  virtuous  have  sometimes  got  rich  gifts  there. 

C.  Yea,  but  they  come  as  seldom  as  the  year  of  jubilee. 

T.  Yet  some  of  them  are  so  courteous,  so  gentle,  so  kind,  so  liberal,  so 
bountiful,  that  envy  itself  cannot  choose  but  love  them,  and  blame  honour  them, 
and,  I  think,  there  is  no  Court  in  the  world  that  hath  more  nobility  in  it  than 
ours. 

T.  But  tell  me  truth,  had  you  never  the  mind  to  become  a  courtier  ? 

C.  He  that  is  well,  let  him  not  stir,  for  if  in  removing  he  break  his  leg,  at  his 
own  peril  be  it. 

T.  Where  there  is  life  there  is  means  ;  where  means,  entertainment ;  where 
entertainment,  hope  ;  where  hope,  there  is  comfort." 

How  closely  this  last  passage  resembles  the  philosophy 


FALSTAFF'S   ORIGINAL  215 

of  Parolles,  after  his  disgrace,  in  Act  IV.  Scene  iii.  of  Airs 
Well  that  Ends  Well 

PAR.  Yet  am  I  thankful :  if  my  heart  were  great, 
'Twould  burst  at  this.     Captain,  I'll  be  no  more  ; 
But  I  will  eat  and  drink,  and  sleep  as  soft 
As  captain  shall :  simply  the  thing  I  am 
Shall  make  me  live. 

There's  place  and  means  for  every  man  alive. 

The  familiarity  of  the  public  with  the  character  of 
Falstaff,  under  the  name  of  Sir  John  Oldcastle,  is  evidenced 
by  the  frequency  with  which  both  this  play  and  character 
are  referred  to  by  the  latter  name  even  after  the  publication  of 
the  First  Part  of  Henry  IV.  mi  598,  with  the  name  changed  to 
Falstaff.  If  this  play  was  originally  composed,  as  is  usually 
suggested,  in  1596  or  1597,  the  short  period  which  it  could 
have  been  presented  in  its  earlier  form,  and  before  its 
revision  in  the  beginning  of  1598,  would  scarcely  allow  for 
the  confirmed  acquaintance  of  the  public  with  the  name  of 
Sir  John  Oldcastle  in  connection  with  the  characterisation 
developed  by  Shakespeare.  While  Shakespeare  took  this 
name  from  the  old  play  of  The  Famous  Victories  of  Henry  V., 
there  is  no  similarity  between  the  characterisation  of  the 
persons  presented  under  that  name  in  the  two  plays. 

Nicholas  Rowe,  Shakespeare's  earliest  biographer,  is 
responsible  for  the  report  that  the  change  of  the  name  of 
this  character  from  Oldcastle  to  Falstaff  was  made  by 
Shakespeare  at  the  command  of  the  Queen,  and  owing  to 
the  protest  of  Lord  Cobham.  It  is  not  unlikely  that  there 
was  some  basis  of  truth  for  this  report,  nor  improbable  that 
Lord  Cobham's  alleged  objection  was  caused  by  the  mis- 
representations of  Shakespeare's  literary  rivals,  including 
Florio,  whose  own  "  ox  had  been  gored," 


216    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST    YEARS 

In  1597  the  Wardenship  of  the  Cinque  Ports  having 
become  vacant,  Sir  Robert  Sidney,  who  had  been  long 
absent  from  England  as  Governor  of  Flushing,  and  was 
desirous  of  returning,  made  application  for  the  office,  being 
aided  in  his  suit  by  the  Earl  of  Essex  and  others  of  his 
friends  in  Essex's  party.  Sir  Robert  Cecil,  while  encouraging 
Sidney  and  professing  friendship,  secretly  aided  Lord 
Cobham  for  the  post.  Sidney's  military  fitness  for  so 
responsible  a  charge  was  constantly  urged  against  Cobham's 
lack  of  martial  experience,  but  the  Queen,  after  a  long  delay, 
during  which  much  heat  developed  between  the  contestants 
and  their  friends,  finally  decided  in  favour  of  her  relative, 
Lord  Cobham.  The  Earl  of  Southampton  was  one  of  Sir 
Robert  Sidney's  most  intimate  friends  and  ardent  admirers, 
and  must  have  taken  some  interest  in  this  long-drawn-out 
rivalry.  It  is  possible  that  Shakespeare,  instigated  by 
Southampton,  may  have  introduced  some  personal  reflec- 
tions suggestive  of  Cobham's  military  inadequacy  into  the 
performance  of  the  play  at  this  crucial  period,  Cobham's 
alleged  descent  from  the  historical  Oldcastle  lending  the 
suggestion  its  personal  significance. 

The  sixth  book  of  Sonnets  was  written  either  late  in 
1596,  or  in  1597.  A  line  in  the  first  Sonnet  of  this  book 
(Thorpe's  66)  implies,  on  Shakespeare's  part,  a  recent  un- 
pleasant experience  with  the  authorities : 

"And  art  made  tongue-tied  by  authority." 

It  is  apparent  that  whatever  was  the  cause,  some  difficulty 
arose  in  about  1597  regarding  the  name  Oldcastle.  Nicholas 
Rowe's  report  is  substantiated  by  Shakespeare's  own  apolo- 
getic words  in  the  Epilogue  to  Henry  IV.>  Part  II. : 

"  If  you  be  not  too  much  cloyed  with  fat  meat,  our  humble  author  will 
continue  the  story,  with  Sir  John  in  it,  and  make  you  merry  with  fair  Katherine 


FALSTAFF'S   ORIGINAL          217 

of  France ;  where,  for  any  thing  I  know,  Falstaff  shall  die  of  a  sweat,  unless 
already  a'  be  killed  with  your  hard  opinions  ;  for  Oldcastle  died  a  martyr,  and 
this  is  not  the  man." 

If  Shakespeare  was  compelled  to  alter  this  name  for  the 
reasons  reported  by  Nicholas  Rowe,  it  is  not  unlikely  that 
Florio  and  his  literary  allies  helped  in  some  manner  to 
arouse  the  resentment  of  Lord  Cobham.  In  altering  the 
play  in  1598,  and  changing  the  name  of  Sir  John  Oldcastle 
to  Sir  John  Falstaff,  I  am  convinced  that  Shakespeare 
intentionally  made  his  caricature  of  John  Florio  more  trans- 
parent by  choosing  a  name  having  the  same  initials  as  his, 
and  furthermore,  that  in  altering  the  historical  name  of 
Fastolfe  to  Falstaff,  he  intended  to  indicate  Florio's  relations 
with  Southampton  as  a  false-staff,  a  misleader  of  youth. 
The  Epilogue  of  the  Second  Part  of  Henry  IV.,  while  deny- 
ing a  representation  of  the  historical  Sir  John  Oldcastle  in 
the  words  "  this  is  not  the  man,"  implies  at  the  same  time 
that  some  other  personal  application  is  intended  in  the  charac- 
terisation of  Falstaff! 

The  First  Part  of  Henry  IV.,  with  its  significant  allusion 
to  the  "  Humourous  Conceits  of  Sir  John  Falstaff"  on  the 
title-page,  was  entered  on  the  Stationers'  Registers  under 
date  of  25th  February  1598,  and  was  published  within  a 
short  period.  That  John  Florio  recognised  Shakespeare's 
satire  and  personal  intention  in  choosing  a  character  with 
his  own  initials  he  shows  within  a  month  or  two  of  this  date 
in  his  "  Address  to  the  Reader,"  prefixed  to  his  Worlde  of 
Wordes.  He  accuses  a  person,  whom  he  indicates  under 
the  initials  "  H.  S."  of  having  made  a  satirical  use  of  his 
initials  "  J.  F."  It  is  evident  that  in  using  the  letters  "  H.  S." 
he  is  not  giving  the  actual  initials  of  his  antagonist. 
Addressing  "  H.  S."  he  says :  "  And  might  not  a  man,  that 


218    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

can  do  as  much  as  you  (that  is  reade)  finde  as  much  matter 
out  of  H.  S.  as  you  did  out  of  J.  F.  ?  "  He  says  the  person 
at  whom  he  aims  is  a  "  reader  "  and  a  "  writer  "  too ;  he  also 
indicates  him  as  a  maker  of  plays.  He  says : 

"  Let  Aristopanes  and  his  comedians  make  plates,  and 
scowre  their  mouthes  on  Socrates ;  those  very  mouthes  they 
make  to  vilifie,  shall  be  meanes  to  amplifie  his  vertue.  And 
it  was  not  easie  for  Cato  to  speake  evill,  so  was  it  not  usuall 
for  him  to  heare  evill.  It  may  be  Socrates  would  not  kicke 
againe,  if  an  asse  did  kicke  at  him,  yet  some  that  cannot  be 
so  wise,  and  will  not  be  so  patient  as  Socrates,  will  for  such 
jadish  tricks  give  the  asse  his  due  burthen  of  bastonadas.  Let 
H.  S.  hisse,  and  his  complices  quarrell,  and  all  breake  their 
gals,  /  have  a  great  faction  of  good  writers  to  bandie  with  me" 

Florio  here  gives  palpable  evidence  of  the  fact  that  his 
was  not  an  isolated  case,  but  that  he  was  banded  with  a  literary 
faction  in  hostility  to  Shakespeare,  which  included  Roydon, 
who  published  Willobie  his  Avisa  in  1594,  again  in  1596, 
and  again  in  1599;  Chapman,  who,  in  1593,  attacked  Shake- 
speare in  the  early  Histriomastix,  and  again  in  1 599  in  its 
revision,  as  well  as  in  his  poem  to  Harriot,  appended  to 
his  Achilles  Shield  in  the  same  year;  and  Marston,  who 
joined  Chapman  in  opposition  to  Shakespeare,  and  helped 
in  the  revision  of  Histriomastix.  In  the  words  "  Let  H.  S. 
hisse,  and  his  complices  quarrell,  etc.,"  Florio  also  gives 
evidence  that  Shakespeare  at  this  period  had  literary  allies. 
In  the  story  of  the  Sonnets  I  shall  show  that  Dekker  was 
Shakespeare's  principal  ally  in  what  has  been  called  the 
"War  of  the  Theatres,"  which  is  supposed  to  have 
commenced  at  this  time,  and,  bearing  in  mind  Chettle's 
recorded  collaboration  with  Dekker  at  this  same  period,  it  is 
evident  that  he  also  sided  with  Shakespeare. 


FALSTAFF'S   ORIGINAL  219 

A  careful  search  of  Elizabethan  literature  fails  to  bring 
to  light  any  other  writer  who  makes  a  satirical  use  of  the 
initials  "J.  F."  or  any  record  of  a  writer  bearing  initials  in 
any  way  resembling  "  H.  S"  who  in  any  manner  approximates 
to  Florid s  description  of  a  "reader"  and  a  "writer  too"  as 
well  as  a  maker  of  plays. 

I  have  already  shown  Chapman's  references  to  Shake- 
speare in  the  dedication  of  The  Shadow  of  Night.  His 
allusion  to  Shakespeare  as  "  passion -driven  "  at  that  date 
(1594)  being  a  reference  to  his  relations  with  the  "dark 
lady."  That  he  suggests  Shakespeare,  in  his  capacity  of 
"reader"  to  the  Earl  of  Southampton,  and  that  he  takes 
flings  at  his  social  quality  in  the  expression  "Judgements 
butcher,"  which  I  recognise  as  an  allusion  to  his  father's 
trade,  and  in  the  words  "  Intonsi  Catones,"  as  a  reference  to 
his  provincial  breeding  as  well  as  to  the  flowing  manner  in 
which  he  wore  his  hair.  In  elucidating  the  meaning  of  the 
initials  "  H.  S.,"  Florio  still  more  coarsely  indicates  our 
country -bred  poet,  and  accuses  him  of  being  a  parasite,  a 
bloodsucker,  and  a  monster  of  lasciviousness.  His  abusive 
descriptions  are  given  in  Latin  and  Italian  phrases  com- 
mencing with  the  letters  H  and  S.  His  reason  for  using 
the  letter  H  no  doubt  being  that  there  is  no  W  in  either 
Italian  or  Latin,  H  being  its  nearest  phonetic  equivalent.  Let 
us  consider  the  whole  passage. 

"  There  is  another  sort  of  leering  curs,  that  rather  snarle 
than  bite,  whereof  I  coulde  instance  in  one,  who  lighting 
upon  a  good  sonnet  of  a  gentlemans,  a  friend  of  mine,  that 
loved  better  to  be  a  Poet,  then  to  be  counted  so,  called  the 
author  a  rymer,  notwithstanding  he  had  more  skill  in  good 
Poetrie,  then  my  slie  gentleman  seemed  to  have  in  good 
manners  or  humanitie.  But  my  quarrell  is  to  a  tooth-lesse 


220    SHAKESPEARE'S  LOST  YEARS 

dog,  that  hateth  where  he  cannot  hurt,  and  would  faine  bite 
when  he  hath  no  teeth.  His  name  is  H.  S.  Do  not  take  it 
for  the  Romane  H.  S.  for  he  is  not  of  so  much  worth,  unlesse 
it  be  as  H.  S.  is  twice  as  much  and  a  halfe  as  halfe  an  As. 
But  value  you  him  how  you  will,  I  am  sure  he  highly  valueth 
himselfe.  This  fellow,  this  H.  S.  reading  (for  I  would  you 
should  knowe  he  is  a  reader  and  a  writer  too)  under  my  last 
epistle  to  the  reader  J.  F.  made  as  familiar  a  word  of  F.  as  if 
I  had  bin  his  brother.  Now  Recte  fit  oculis  magister  tuis, 
said  an  ancient  writer  to  a  much-like  reading  gramarian- 
pedante  * :  God  save  your  eie-sight,  sir,  or  at  least  your  in- 
sight. And  might  not  a  man,  that  can  do  as  much  as  you 
(that  is,  reade)  finde  as  much  matter  out  of  H.  S.  as  you  did 
out  of  J.  F.  ?  As  for  example  H.  S.  why  may  it  not  stand 
as  well  for  Haeres  Stultitiae,  as  for  Homo  Simplex  ?  or  for 
Hircus  Satiricus,  as  well  as  for  any  of  them  ?  And  this  in 
Latine,  besides  Hedera  Seguace,  Harpia  Subata,  Humore 
Superbo,  Hipocrito  Simulatore  in  Italian.  And  in  English 
world  without  end.  Huffe  Snuffe,  Horse  Stealer,  Hob 
Sowter,  Hugh  Sot,  Humphrey  Swineshead,  Hodge  Sow- 
gelder.  Now  Master  H.  S.  if  this  do  gaule  you,  forbeare 
kicking  hereafter,  and  in  the  meane  time  you  may  make  a 
plaister  of  your  dried  Marjoram.  I  have  scene  in  my  daies 
an  inscription,  harder  to  finde  out  the  meaning,  and  yet 
easier  for  a  man  to  picke  a  better  meaning  out  of  it,  if  he  be 
not  a  man  of  H.  S.  condition." 

It  will  be  noticed  that  Florio's  reflections  upon  Shake- 
speare's breeding,  morals,  and  manners,  while  couched  in 
coarser  terms,  are  of  the  same  nature  as  Chapman's.  Ben 
Jonson, — as  shall  later  be  shown, — in  Every  Man  out  of  his 
Humour,  casts  similar  slurs  at  Shakespeare's  provincial 
origin.  It  is  likely  that  the  friend  whose  sonnet  had  been 
criticised  and  who  was  called  a  "  rymer "  by  "  H.  S."  was 

1  A  grammar-school  pedant,  alluding  to  Shakespeare's  limited  education. 


FALSTAFF'S   ORIGINAL          221 

none  other  than  George  Chapman.  The  fifth  book  of 
Shakespeare's  Sonnets  to  the  Earl  of  Southampton  was 
written  against  Chapman's  advances  upon  his  patron's 
favour.  In  the  tenth  Sonnet  in  this  booky  which  is  numbered 
as  the  38th  in  Thorpe's  arrangement,  Shakespeare  refers 
to  Chapman  as  a  rhymer  in  the  lines : 

"  Be  thou  the  tenth  Muse  ten  times  more  in  worth 
Than  those  old  nine  which  rhymers  invocate." 

The  few  records  concerning  Florio,  from  which  we  may 
derive  any  idea  of  his  personal  appearance  and  manner, 
suggest  a  very  singular  individuality.  There  was  evidently 
something  peculiar  about  his  face;  he  was  undoubtedly 
witty  and  worldly-wise,  a  braggart,  a  sycophant,  and  some- 
what of  a  buffoon.  He  was  imbued  with  an  exaggerated 
idea  of  his  own  importance,  and  possessed  of  most  un- 
blushing assurance.  In  1591  he  signed  his  address  "To 
the  Reader,"  prefixed  to  his  Second  Fruites,  "Resolute 
John  Florio,"  a  prefix  which  he  persisted  thereafter  in 
using  in  similar  addresses  in  other  publications.  In  1600 
Sir  William  Cornwallis  (who  at  that  time  had  seen  Florio's 
translation  of  Montaigne's  Essays  in  MS.)  writes  of  him : 
"  Montaigne  now  speaks  good  English.  It  is  done  by  a 
fellow  less  beholding  to  nature  for  his  fortune  than  wit, 
yet  lesser  for  his  face  than  fortune.  The  truth  is,  he  looks 
more  like  a  good  fellow  than  a  wise  man,  and  yet  he  is 
wise  beyond  either  his  fortune  or  education." 

Between  the  year  1598  (when  Florio  dedicated  his 
World  of  Wordes  to  the  Earl  of  Southampton)  and  1603, 
when  Southampton  was  released  from  the  Tower  upon  the 
accession  of  James  I.,  we  have  no  record  of  Florio's 
connection  with  that  nobleman.  It  was  undoubtedly  due 


222    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

to  Southampton's  influence  in  the  new  Court  that  Florio 
became  reader  to  Queen  Anna  and  Gentleman  of  the  Privy 
Chamber  to  James  I.  His  native  vanity  and  arrogance 
blossomed  into  full  bloom  in  this  connection,  in  which  he 
seems  to  have  been  tolerated  as  a  sort  of  superior  Court 
jester.  The  extravagant  and  grandiloquent  diction  of  his 
early  dedications  read  like  commonplace  prose  when  com- 
pared with  the  inflated  verbosity  of  his  later  dedications 
to  Queen  Anna.  In  1613  he  issued  a  new  edition  of 
Montaigne's  Essays  which  he  dedicated  to  the  Queen.  A 
comparison  of  the  flattering  sycophancy  of  this  dedication 
with  the  quick  transition  of  his  tone  in  his  curt  and  insolent 
address  "  To  the  Reader  "  in  the  same  book  will  give  some 
idea  of  the  man's  shallow  bumptiousness. 

"  To  THE  MOST  ROYAL  AND  RENOWNED  MAJESTIE  OF  THE 
HIGHBORN  PRINCESS  ANNA  OF  DENMARK 

By  the  grace  of  God,  Queen  of  England,  Scotland,  France  and  Ireland. 
Imperial  and  Incomparable  Majestic.  Seeing  with  me  all  of  me  is  in  your 
royal  possession,  and  whatever  pieces  of  mine  have  hitherto  under  the  starres 
passed  the  public  view,  come  now  of  right  to  be  under  the  predomination 
of  a  power  that  both  contains  all  their  perfections  and  hath  influences  of  a 
more  sublime  nature.  I  could  not  but  also  take  in  this  part  (whereof  time 
had  worn  out  the  edition)  which  the  world  had  long  since  had  of  mine  and 
lay  it  at  your  sacred  feet  as  a  memorial  of  my  devoted  duty,  and  to  show  that 
where  I  am  I  must  be  all  I  am  and  cannot  stand  dispersed  in  my  observance 
being  wholly  (and  therein  happy)— Your  Sacred  Majesties  most  humble  and 
Loyal  servant,  JOHN  FLORIO. 

To  THE  READER 

Enough,  if  not  too  much,  hath  been  said  of  this  translation,  if  the  faults 
found  even  by  my  own  selfe  in  the  first  impression  be  now  by  the  printer 
corrected,  as  he  was  directed,  the  work  is  much  amended ;  if  not,  know,  that 
through  this  mine  attendance  on  her  Majestic  I  could  not  intend  it :  and 
blame  not  Neptune  for  thy  second  shipwrecke.  Let  me  conclude  with  this 
worthy  mans  daughter  of  alliance  'Que  1'en  semble  done  lecteur.' 

Still  Resolute       JOHN  FLORIO, 
Gentleman  Extraordinary  and  Groome  of  the  Privy  Chamber." 


APPENDIX 

I 

DEDICATION  OF 
FLORIO'S  SECOND  FRUITES,  1591 

TO  THE  RIGHT  WORSHIPFULL,  THE  KINDE 
ENTERTAINER  OF  VERTUE,  AND  MIRROUR  OF 
A  GOOD  MINDE  MASTER  NICHOLAS  SAUNDER 
OF  EWEL,  ESQUIRE,  HIS  DEVOTED  JOHN 
FLORIO  CONGRATULATES  THE  RICH  REWARD 
OF  THE  ONE,  AND  LASTING  BEAUTIE  OF  THE 
OTHER,  AND  WISHES  ALL  FELICITIE  ELS 

SIR,  in  this  stirring  time,  and  pregnant  prime  of  invention 
when  everie  bramble  is  fruitefull,  when  everie  mol-hill  hath 
cast  of  the  winters  mourning  garment,  and  when  everie 
man  is  busilie  woorking  to  feede  his  owne  fancies;  some 
by  delivering  to  the  presse  the  occurrences  &  accidents 
of  the  world,  newes  from  the  marte,  or  from  the  mint,  and 
newes  are  the  credite  of  a  travailer,  and  first  question  of 
an  Englishman.  Some  like  Alchimists  distilling  quint- 
essences of  wit,  that  melt  golde  to  nothing,  and  yet  would 
make  golde  of  nothing ;  that  make  men  in  the  moone,  and 
catch  the  moon  shine  in  the  water.  Some  putting  on  pyed 
coates  lyke  calendars,  and  hammering  upon  dialls,  taking 
the  elevation  of  Pancridge  Church  (their  quotidian  walkes) 
pronosticate  of  faire,  of  foule,  and  of  smelling  weather; 


224    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

men  weatherwise,  that  wil  by  aches  foretell  of  change  and 
alteration  of  wether.  Some  more  active  gallants  made  of 
a  finer  molde,  by  devising  how  to  win  their  Mistrises 
favours,  and  how  to  blaze  and  blanche  their  passions,  with 
aeglogues,  songs,  and  sonnets,  in  pitifull  verse  or  miserable 
prose,  and  most  for  a  fashion:  is  not  Love  then  a  wagg, 
that  makes  men  so  wanton?  yet  love  is  a  pretie  thing  to 
give  unto  my  Ladie.  Othersome  with  new  caracterisings 
bepasting  al  the  posts  in  London  to  the  proofe,  and  fouling 
of  paper,  in  twelve  howres  thinke  to  effect  Calabrian 
wonders:  is  not  the  number  of  twelve  wonderfull?  Some 
with  Amadysing  &  Martinising  a  multitude  of  our  libertine 
yonkers  with  triviall,  frivolous,  and  vaine  vaine  droleries, 
set  manie  mindes  a  gadding ;  could  a  foole  with  a  feather 
make  men  better  sport  ?  I  could  not  chuse  but  apply  my 
self  in  some  sort  to  the  season,  and  either  proove  a  weede 
in  my  encrease  without  profit,  or  a  wholesome  pothearbe 
in  profit  without  pleasure.  If  I  prove  more  than  I  promise, 
I  will  impute  it  to  the  bountie  of  the  gracious  Soile  where 
my  endevours  are  planted,  whose  soveraine  vertue  divided 
with  such  worthies  seedes,  hath  transformed  my  unregarded 
slips  to  medcinable  simples.  Manie  sowe  corne,  and  reape 
thisles ;  bestow  three  yeares  toyle  in  manuring  a  barraine 
plot,  and  have  nothing  for  their  labor  but  their  travel: 
the  reason  why,  because  they  leave  the  low  dales,  to  seeke 
thrift  in  the  hill  countries;  and  dig  for  gold  on  the  top 
of  the  Alpes,  when  Esops  cock  found  a  pearle  in  a  lower 
place.  For  me  I  am  none  of  their  faction,  I  love  not  to 
climbe  high  to  catch  shadowes;  suficeth  gentle  Sir,  that 
your  perfections  are  the  Port  where  my  labors  must  anchor, 
whose  manie  and  liberall  favours  have  been  so  largely 
extended  unto  me,  that  I  have  long  time  studied  how  I 
might  in  some  fort  gratefully  testifie  my  thankfulnes  unto 
you.  But  when  I  had  assembled  all  my  thoughts,  & 
entred  into  a  contrarious  consultation  of  my  utmost  abilities, 
I  could  not  find  anie  employment  more  agreeable  to  my 


APPENDIX  225 

power,  or  better  beseeming  my  dutie,  than  this  present 
Dedication,  whereby  the  world,  by  the  instance  of  your 
never  entermitted  benevolence  towards  me,  should  have 
a  perfect  insight  into  your  vertue  &  bountie,  (qualities 
growne  too  solitary  in  this  age)  and  your  selfe  might  be 
unfallibly  perswaded  in  what  degree  I  honor  and  regarde 
you.  For  indeede  I  neither  may  in  equitie  forget,  nor  in 
reason  conceale  the  rare  curtesies  you  vouchsaft  me  at 
Oxford,  the  friendly  offers  and  great  liberalitie  since  (above 
my  hope  and  desert)  continued  at  London^  wherewith  you 
have  fast  bound  me  to  beare  a  dutiful  &  grateful  observance 
towards  you  while  I  live,  &  to  honour  that  mind  from 
which  as  from  a  spring  al  your  friendships  &  goodnes 
hath  flowed :  And  therefore  to  give  you  some  paune  and 
certaine  assurance  of  a  thankfull  minde,  and  my  professed 
devotion  I  have  consecrated  these  my  slender  endevours 
wholy  to  your  delight,  which  shall  stand  for  an  image  and 
monument  of  your  worthines  to  posteritie.  And  though 
they  serve  to  pleasure  and  profite  manie,  yet  shall  my  selfe 
reape  pleasure,  also  if  they  please  you  well,  under  whose 
name  and  cognisance  they  shall  goe  abroad  and  seeke 
their  fortunes.  How  the  world  will  entertaine  them  I  know 
not,  or  what  acceptance  your  credit  may  adde  to  their 
basenes  I  am  yet  uncertaine ;  but  this  I  dare  vaunt  without 
sparke  of  vaine-glory  that  I  have  given  you  a  taste  of  the 
best  Italian  fruites,  the  Thuscane  Garden  could  affoorde; 
but  if  the  pallate  of  some  ale  or  beere  mouths  be  out  of 
taste  that  they  cannot  taste  them,  let  them  sporte  but  not 
spue.  The  moone  keeps  her  course  for  all  the  dogges 
barking.  I  have  for  these  fruites  ransackt  and  rifled  all 
the  gardens  of  fame  throughout  Italic  (and  they  are  the 
Hesperides)  if  translated  they  do  prosper  as  they  flourished 
upon  their  native  stock,  or  eate  them  &  they  will  be 
sweete,  or  set  them  &  they  will  adorne  your  orchyards. 

The  maiden-head  of  my  industrie  I  yeelded  to  a  noble 
Mecenas  (renoumed  Lecester)  the  honor  of  England,  whom 
15 


226    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

thogh  like  Hector  every  miscreant  Mirmidon  dare  strik  being 
dead,  yet  sing  Homer  or  Virgil^  write  friend  or  foe,  of  Troy, 
or  Troyes  issue,  that  Hector  must  have  his  desert,  the  General 
of  his  Prince,  the  Paragon  of  his  Peeres,  the  watchman  of 
our  peace, 

"Won  so  se  miglior  Duce  o  Cavalliero" 

as  Petrarke  hath  in  his  triumph  of  fame ;  and  to  conclude, 
the  supporter  of  his  friends,  the  terror  of  his  foes,  and  the 
Britton  Patron  of  the  Muses. 

"  Dardanias  light,  and  Troyans  faithfulst  hope." 

But  nor  I,  nor  this  place  may  halfe  suffice  for  his  praise, 
which  the  sweetest  singer  of  all  our  westerns  shepheards 
hath  so  exquisitely  depainted,  that  as  Achilles  by  Alexander 
was  counted  happy  for  having  such  a  rare  emblazoner  of 
his  magnanimitie,  as  the  Meonian  Poete ;  so  I  account  him 
thrice-fortunate  in  having  such  a  herauld  of  his  vertues  as 
Spencer;  Curteous  Lord,  Curteous  Spencer,  I  knowe  not 
which  hath  purchast  more  fame,  either  he  in  deserving  so 
well  of  so  famous  a  scholler,  or  so  famous  a  scholler  in  being 
so  thankfull  without  hope  of  requitall  to  so  famous  a  Lord  : 
But  leaving  him  that  dying  left  al  Artes,  and  al  strangers 
as  Orphanes,  forsaken,  and  friendles,  I  will  wholy  convert 
my  muze  to  you  (my  second  patron)  who  amongst  many 
that  beare  their  crests  hie,  and  mingle  their  titles  with 
TAMMARTI  QUAM  MERCURIC  are  an  unfayned  embracer  of 
vertues,  and  nourisher  of  knowledge  and  learning.  I  pub- 
lished long  since  my  first  fruits  of  such  as  were  but  meanely 
entred  in  the  Italian  tongue,  (which  because  they  were  the 
first,  and  the  tree  but  young  were  something  sower,  yet  at 
last  digested  in  this  cold  climat)  knowing  well  that  they 
would  both  nourish  and  delight,  &  now  I  have  againe  after 
long  toyle  and  diligent  pruning  of  my  orcharde  brought 
forth  my  second  fruites,  (better,  riper,  and  pleasanter  than 
the  first)  not  unfit  for  those  that  embrace  the  language  of 
the  muses,  or  would  beautifie  their  speech  with  a  not  vulgar 


APPENDIX  227 

bravery.  These  two  I  brought  forth  as  the  daughters  and 
offsprings  of  my  care  and  studie :  My  elder  (as  before  is 
noted)  because  she  was  ambitious  (as  heires  are  wont)  I 
married  for  preferment  and  for  honour,  but  this  younger 
(fayrer,  better  nurtured,  &  comelier  than  her  sister)  because 
my  hope  of  such  preferment  and  honour  as  my  first  had, 
fayled  me,  I  thought  to  have  cloystred  up  in  some  solitarynes, 
which  shee  perceiving,  with  haste  putting  on  her  best 
ornaments  and  (following  the  guise  of  her  countrie-women 
presuming  very  much  upon  the  love  and  favour  of  her 
parentes)  hath  voluntaryly  made  her  choyce  (plainly  telling 
me  that  she  will  not  leade  apes  in  hell)  and  matched  with 
such  a  one  as  she  best  liketh,  and  hopeth  will  both  dearly 
love  her,  &  make  her  such  a  joynter  as  shal  be  to  the 
comfort  of  her  parents,  and  joy  of  her  match,  and  therefore 
have  I  given  her  my  consent,  because  shee  hath  jumped  so 
well  with  modesty,  and  not  aspired  so  high  that  shee  might 
be  upbraided  either  with  her  birth  or  basenes  when  she  could 
not  mend  it.  I  know  the  world  will  smile  friendlier,  and 
gaze  more  upon  a  damzell  marching  in  figured  silkes  (who 
are  as  paper  bookes  with  nothing  in  them)  than  upon  one 
being  onely  clad  in  home-spunn  cloth  (who  are  as  playne 
cheasts  full  of  treasure)  yet  communis  error  shall  not  have 
my  company,  and  therefore  have  I  rather  chosen  to  present 
my  Italian  and  English  proverbiall  sportes  to  such  a  one  as 
I  know  joynes  them  both  so  aptly  in  himselfe,  as  I  doubt 
whether  is  best  in  him,  but  he  is  best  in  both ;  who  loves 
them  both,  no  man  better ;  and  touching  proverbs,  invents 
them,  no  man  finer ;  and  aplyes  them,  no  man  fitter ;  and 
that  taketh  his  greatest  contentment  in  knowledge  of 
languages  (guides  and  instruments  to  perfection  and 
excellency)  as  in  Nectar  and  Ambrosia  (meate  onely  for 
Gods  and  deyfied  mindes,)  I  shal  not  neede  to  trouble  my 
selfe  or  you  with  any  commendation  of  the  matter  I  deliver, 
nor  to  give  credit  by  some  figures  and  colours  to  proverbs 
and  sentences,  seeing  your  selfe  know  well  (whose  censure  I 


228    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

most  respect)  both  how  much  a  proverbiall  speech  (namely 
in  the  Italian)  graceth  a  wise  meaning,  and  how  probably 
it  argueth  a  good  conceipt,  and  also  how  naturally  the 
Italians  please  themselves  with  such  materyall,  short,  and 
witty  speeches  (which  when  they  themselves  are  out  of 
Italy  and  amongst  strangers,  who  they  think  hath  learnt 
a  little  Italian  out  of  Castilions  courtier,  or  Guazzo  his 
dialogues,  they  will  endevour  to  forget  or  neglect  and 
speake  bookish,  and  not  as  they  wil  doe  amongst  them- 
selves because  they  know  their  proverbs  never  came  over 
the  Alpes)  no  lesse  than  with  the  conceipted  apothegmes, 
or  Impreses,  which  never  fall  within  the  reach  of  a  barren  or 
vulgar  head.  What  decorum  I  have  observed  in  selecting 
them,  I  leave  to  the  learned  to  consider.  Thus  craving  the 
continuall  sun-shine  of  your  worships  favour  towards  me, 
and  that  they  may  never  decline  to  any  west,  and  desiring 
your  friendly  censure  of  my  travailes,  I  wish  unto  you  your 
owne  wishes,  which  are  such  as  wisedome  endites,  and 
successe  should  subscribe. — Your  affectionate  in  all  he  may. 

I.  F. 


II 

ADDRESS  TO  THE  READER  FROM  FLORIO'S 
SECOND  FRUITES,  1591 

To  THE  READER 

READER,  good  or  bad,  name  thyself,  for  I  know  not 
which  to  tearme  thee,  unless  heard  thee  read,  and  reading 
judge,  or  judging  exercise  ;  or  curtesie  the  cognisance  of 
a  Gentleman,  or  malice  the  badge  of  a  Momus,  or  exact 
examination  the  puritane  scale  of  a  criticall  censor :  to  the 
first  (as  to  my  friends)  I  wish  as  gracious  acceptance  where 
they  desire  it  most,  as  they  extend  where  I  deserve  it  least ; 
to  the  second  I  can  wish  no  worse  than  they  worke  them- 
selves, though  I  should  wish  them  blyndnes,  deafnes,  and 
dumbnes :  for  blynd  they  are  (or  worse)  that  see  their  owne 
vices,  others  vertues :  deafe  they  are  (or  worse)  that  never 
could  heare  well  of  themselves,  nor  would  heare  well  of 
others:  and  dumbe  they  are  (and  worse)  that  speake  not 
but  behinde  mens  backs  (whose  bookes  speake  to  all ;)  and 
speake  nought  but  is  naught  like  themselves,  than  who, 
what  can  be  worse  ?  As  for  critiks  I  accompt  of  them  as 
crickets ;  no  goodly  bird  if  a  man  marke  them,  no  sweete 
note  if  a  man  heare  them,  no  good  luck  if  a  man  have  them  ; 
they  lurke  in  corners,  but  catch  cold  if  they  looke  out ;  they 
lie  in  sight  of  the  furnace  that  tryes  others,  but  will  not 
come  neare  the  flame  that  should  purifie  themselves :  they 
are  bred  of  filth,  &  fed  with  filth,  what  vermine  to  call 
them  I  know  not,  or  wormes,  or  flyes,  or  what  worse  ?  They 


230    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

are   like  cupping  glasses,  that   draw   nothing  but  corrupt 
blood  ;  like  swine,  that  leave  the  cleare  springs  to  wallow  in 
a  puddle:  they  doo  not  as  Plutarke  and  Aristarcus  derive 
philosophic,  and  set  flowers  out  of  Homer ;  but  with  Zoylus 
deride  his  halting,  and  pull  asunder  his  faire  joynted  verses : 
they  doo  not  seeke  honie  with  the  bee,  but  suck  poyson  with 
the   spider.     They  will   doo   nought,  yet  all  is  naught  but 
what  they  doo ;   they  snuff  our  lampes  perhaps,  but   sure 
they  add  no  oyle ;  they  will  heale  us  of  the  toothache,  but 
are  themselves  sick    of  the  fever-lourdane.     Demonstrative 
rethorique   is   their  studie,  and   the  doggs   letter  they  can 
snarle  alreadie.     As  for  me,  for  it  is  I,  and  I  am  an  English- 
man in  Italiane,  I  know  they  have  a  knife  at  command  to 
cut   my  throate,  Un   Inglese   Italianato,  e  un  Diauolo  in- 
carnato.     Now,  who  the  Divell  taught  thee  so  much  Italian  ? 
speake  me  as  much  more,  and  take   all.     Meane  you  the 
men,  or  their  mindes  ?  be  the  men  good,  and  their  mindes 
bad  ?  speake  for  the  men  (for  you  are  one)  and  I  will  doubt 
of  your  minde :  Mislike  you  the  language  ?     Why  the  best 
speake  it   best,  and   hir  Majestic  none  better.     I,  but   too 
manie  tongues   are  naught;   indeede  one  is  too  manie  for 
him  that  cannot  use  it  well.     Mithridates  was  reported  to 
have  learned  three    and    twentie   severall   languages,   and 
Ennius  to  have  three  harts,   because  three  tongues,  but  it 
should  seeme  thou  hast  not  one  sound  heart,  but  such  a  one 
as  is  cancred  with  ennui ;   nor   anie  tongue,  but   a   forked 
tongue,  thou  hissest  so  like  a  snake,  and  yet  me  thinkes  by 
thy  looke,  thou  shouldst  have  no  tongue  thou  gapest  and 
mowest  so  like  a  frogg :  I,  but  thou  canst  reade  whatsoever 
is   good  in   Italian,  translated   into   English.     And  was   it 
good   that  they  translated  then  ?   or  were  they  good   that 
translated   it?     Had   they   been   like  thee,  they   were   not 
woorth   the   naming ;    and    thou    being   unlike    them,   art 
unworthie   to  name  them.     Had  they  not  knowen  Italian, 
how  had  they  translated  it  ?  had  they  not  translated  it,  where 
were  not  thy  reading?     Rather  drinke  at  the  wel-head,  than 


APPENDIX  231 

sip  at  pudled  streames ;  rather  buy  at  the  first  hand,  than  goe 
on  trust  at  the  hucksters.  I,  but  thou  wilt  urge  me  with  their 
manners  &  vices,  (not  remembring  that  where  great  vices  are, 
there  are  infinit  vertues)  &  aske  me  whether  they  be  good  or 
bad  ?  Surely  touching  their  vices,  they  are  bad  (&  I  condemne 
them)  like  thyself ;  the  men  are  as  we  are,  (is  bad,  God  amend 
both  us  &  them)  and  I  think  wee  may  verie  well  mend 
both.  I,  but  (peradventure)  thou  wilt  say  my  frutes  are 
wyndie,  I  pray  thee  keepe  thy  winde  to  coole  thy  potage. 
I,  but  they  are  rotten  :  what,  and  so  greene  ?  that's  marvell ; 
indeede  I  thinke  the  caterpiller  hath  newly  caught  them. 
If  thy  sight  and  taste  be  so  altred,  that  neither  colour  or 
taste  of  my  frutes  will  please  thee,  I  greatly  force  not,  for  I 
never  minded  to  be  thy  fruterer.  Muro  bianco  is  paper 
good  enough  for  everie  matto:  Prints  were  first  invented 
for  wise  mens  use,  and  not  for  fooles  play.  These  Proverbs 
and  proverbiall  Phrases,  (hethertoo  so  peculiar  to  the 
Italians,  that  they  could  never  find  the  way  over  the 
Apenines,  or  meanes  to  become  familiar  to  anie  other 
Nation)  have  onely  been  selected  and  stamped  for  the  wise 
and  not  for  thee,  (and  therefore  hast  thou  no  part  in  them) 
who  will  kindly  accept  of  them  :  (though  in  the  ordering  of 
them  I  differ  from  most  mens  methodes,  who  in  their 
compositions  onely  seeke  for  words  to  expresse  their 
matter,  and  I  have  endevored  to  finde  matter  to  declare 
those  Italian  words  &  phrases,  that  yet  never  saw  Albions 
cliffes)  for  the  pleasure  of  which,  I  will  shortly  send  into 
the  world  an  exquisite  Italian  and  English  Dictionary,  and 
a  compendious  Grammer.  The  Sunne  spreading  his  beames 
indifferently  (and  my  frutes  are  in  an  open  orchyard,  in- 
different to  all)  doth  soften  wax,  and  harden  clay ;  (my 
frutes  will  please  the  gentler,  but  offend  the  clayish  or 
clownish  sort,  whom  good  things  scarcely  please,  and  I 
care  not  to  displease).  I  know  I  have  them  not  all,  and 
you  with  readie  (if  I  should  say  so)  with  Bate  me  an  ace 
quoth  Bolton,  or  Wide  quoth  Bolton  when  his  bolt  flew 


232    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

backward.  Indeed  here  are  not  all,  for  tell  me  who  can  tell 
them;  but  here  are  the  chiefs,  and  thanke  me  that  I  cull 
them.  The  Greekes  and  Latines  thanks  Erasmus,  and  our 
Englishmen  make  much  of  Heywood  :  for  Proverbs  are  the 
pith,  the  proprieties,  the  proofs,  the  purities,  the  elegancies, 
as  the  commonest  so  the  commendablest  phrases  of  a 
language.  To  use  them  is  a  grace,  to  understand  them  a 
good,  but  to  gather  them  a  paine  to  me,  though  gain  to 
thee.  I,  but  for  all  that  I  ^  must  not  scape  without  some 
new  flout :  now  would  I  were^gr  thee  to  give  thee  another, 
and  surely  I  would  give  thee  bread  for  cake.  Farewell  if 
thou  meane  well ;  els  fare  as  ill,  as  thou  wishest  me  to  fare. 
The  last  of  April,  1591. 

Resolute         I.  F. 


Ill 

DEDICATION   OF  FLORIO'S    WORLDE  OF 
WORDES,   1598 

TO    THE  RIGHT   HONORABLE  PATRONS   OF 

VERTUE,    PATTERNS    OF   HONOR,   ROGER 

EARLE  OF  RUTLAND,  HENRIE  EARLE  OF 

SOUTHAMPTON,    LUCIE    COUNTESSE    OF 

BEDFORD 

THIS  dedication  (Right  Honorable  and  that  worthily)  may 
haply  make  your  Honors  muse;  wellfare  that  dedication, 
that  may  excite  your  muse.  I  am  no  auctorifed  Herauld  to 
marshall  your  precedence.  Private  dutie  might  perhaps  give 
one  the  prioritie,  where  publike  respect  should  prefer  another. 
To  choose  Tullie  or  Ausonius  Consuls,  is  to  prefer  them  be- 
fore all  but  one;  but  to  choose  either  the  former  of  the 
twaine,  is  to  prefer  him  before  all.  It  is  saide  of  Atreus  in  a 
fact  most  disorderly,  that  may  be  saide  of  any  in  so  ordering 
his  best  dutie. 

It  makes  no  matter  whether,  yet  he  resolves  of  neither. 
I  onely  say  your  Honors  best  knowe  your  places:  An 
Italian  turne  may  serve  the  turne.  Lame  are  we  in  Platoes 
censure,  if  we  be  not  ambidexters,  using  both  handes  alike. 
Right-hand,  or  left-hand  as  Peeres  with  mutuall  paritie, 
without  disparagement  may  be  please  your  Honors  to  joyne 
hand  in  hand,  an  so  jointly  to  lende  an  eare  (and  lende  it  I 
beseech  you)  to  a  poore  man,  that  invites  your  Honors  to  a 
christening,  that  I  and  my  poore  studies,  like  Philemon  and 


234    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST  YEARS 

Baucis,  may  in  so  lowe  a  cottage  entertaine  so  high,  if  not 
deities,  yet  dignities  ;  of  whom  the  Poet  testifies. 

"  Ma  sopraogni  altro  frutto  gradito 

Fu  il  volto  allegro,  e'l  non  bigiardo  amore. 
E  benchefosse  pouero  il  conuito, 
Non  fu  la  volonta  pouera  e'l  core. 

But  of  all  other  cheere  most  did  content 

A  cheerefull  countenance,  and  a  willing  minde, 

Poore  entertainment  being  richly  ment, 
Pleaded  excuse  for  that  which  was  behinde." 

Two  overhastie  fruites  of  mine  nowe  some  yeeres  since, 
like  two  forwarde  females,  the  one  put  her  selfe  in  service  to 
an  Earle  of  Excellence,  the  other  to  a  Gentleman  of  Woorth, 
both  into  the  worlde  to  runne  the  race  of  their  fortune. 
Now  where  my  rawer  youth  brought  foorth  those  female 
fruites,  my  riper  yeeres  affoording  me  I  cannot  say  a  braine- 
babe  Minerva,  armed  at  all  affaies  at  first  houre ;  but  rather 
from  my  Italian  Semele,  and  English  thigh,  a  bouncing  boie, 
Bacchus-like,  almost  all  named :  And  being  as  the  manner 
of  this  countrie  is,  after  some  strength  gathered  to  bring 
it  abroade ;  I  was  to  entreate  three  witnesses  to  the 
entrie  of  it  into  Christendome,  over-presumptuous  (I  grant) 
to  entreate  so  high  a  preference,  but  your  Honors  so 
gracious  (I  hope)  to  be  over-entreated.  My  hope  springs 
out  of  three  stems :  your  Honors  naturall  benignitie ;  your 
able  employment  of  such  servitours ;  and  the  towardly  likelie- 
hood  of  this  Springall  to  do  you  honest  service.  The  first, 
to  vouchsafe  all ;  the  second,  to  accept  this ;  the  third,  to 
applie  it  selfe  to  the  first  and  second.  Of  the  first,  your 
birth,  your  place,  and  your  custome ;  of  the  second,  your 
studies,  your  conceits,  and  your  exercise:  of  the  thirde,  my 
endevours,  my  proceedings,  and  my  project  gives  assurance. 
Your  birth,  highly  noble,  more  than  gentle:  your  place, 
above  others,  as  in  degree,  so  in  height  of  bountie,  and  other 
vertues:  your  custome,  never  wearie  of  well  dooing:  your 
studies  much  in  al,  most  in  Italian  excellence :  your  conceits, 


APPENDIX  235 

by  understanding  others  to  work  above  them  in  your  owne : 
your  exercise,  to  reade,  what  the  worlds  best  wits  have 
written  and  to  speake  as  they  write.  My  endevours,  to 
apprehend  the  best,  if  not  all :  my  proceedings,  to  impart 
my  best,  first  to  your  Honors,  then  to  all  that  emploie  me : 
my  project,  in  this  volume  to  comprehend  the  best  and  all. 
In  truth  I  acknowledge  an  entyre  debt,  not  onely  of  my  best 
knowledge,  but  of  all,  yea  of  more  then  I  know  or  can,  to 
your  bounteous  Lordship  most  noble,  most  vertuous,  and 
most  Honorable  Earle  of  Southampton,  in  whose  paie  and 
patronage  I  have  lived  some  yeeres ;  to  whom  I  owe  and 
vowe  the  yeeres  I  have  to  live.  But  as  to  me,  and  manie 
more  the  glorious  and  gracious  sunne-shine  of  your  Honor 
hath  infused  light  and  life :  so  may  my  lesser  borrowed 
light,  after  a  principall  respect  to  your  benigne  aspect,  and 
influence,  affoorde  some  lustre  to  some  others.  In  loyaltie  I 
may  averre  (my  needle  toucht,  and  drawne,  and  held  by 
such  an  adamant)  what  he  in  love  assumed,  that  sawe  the 
other  stars,  but  bent  his  course  by  the  Pole-starre,  and  two 
guardes,  avowing,  Aspicit  unam  One  guideth  me,  though 
more  I  see.  Good  parts  imparted  are  not  empaired :  Your 
springs  are  first  to  serve  your  selfe,  yet  may  yeelde  your 
neighbours  sweete  water ;  your  taper  is  to  light  to  you  first, 
and  yet  it  may  light  your  neighbours  candle.  I  might  make 
doubt,  least  I  or  mine  be  not  now  of  any  further  use  to  your 
selfe-sufficiencie,  being  at  home  so  instructed  for  Italian,  as 
teaching  or  learning  could  supplie,  that  there  seemed  no 
neede  of  travell :  and  nowe  by  travell  so  accomplished,  as 
what  wants  to  perfection  ?  Wherein  no  lesse  must  be 
attributed  to  your  embellisht  graces  (my  most  noble,  most 
gracious,  and  most  gracefull  Earle  of  Rutland)  well  entred  in 
the  toong,  ere  your  Honor  entered  Italic,  there  therein 
so  perfected,  as  what  needeth  a  Dictionarie?  Naie,  if  I 
offer  service  but  to  them  that  need  it,  with  what  face  seeke 
I  a  place  with  your  excellent  Ladiship  (my  most-most 
honored,  because  best-best  adorned  Madame)  who  by  con- 


236    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

ceited  Industrie,  or  industrious  conceite,  in  Italian  as  in 
French,  in  French  as  in  Spanish,  in  all  as  in  English,  under- 
stand what  you  reade,  write  as  you  reade,  and  speake  as  you 
write ;  yet  rather  charge  your  minde  with  matter,  then  your 
memorie  with  words  ?  And  if  this  present,  present  so  small 
profit,  I  must  confesse  it  brings  much  lesse  delight :  for,  what 
pleasure  is  a  plot  of  simples,  O  non  vista,  o  mat  note,  o  mat 
gradite,  Or  not  scene,  or  ill  knowne,  or  ill  accepted  ?  Yet 
heere-hence  may  some  good  accrewe,  not  onelie  to  truantlie- 
schollers,  which  ever-and-anon  runne  to  Venuti,  and  Alunno  ; 
or  to  new-entred  novices,  that  hardly  can  construe  their 
lesson  ;  or  to  well-forwarde  students,  that  have  turned  over 
Guazzo  and  Castiglione,  yea  runne  through  Guarini,  Ariosto> 
Taffo,  Boccace  and  Petrarche :  but  even  to  the  most  compleate 
Doctor;  yea  to  him  that  best  can  stande  Alferta  for  the  best 
Italian,  heereof  sometimes  may  rise  some  use:  since,  have  he 
the  memorie  of  Themistocles,  of  Seneca,  of  Scaliger  yet  is  it 
not  infinite,  in  so  finite  a  bodie.  And  I  have  scene  the  best, 
yea  naturall  Italians,  not  onely  stagger,  but  even  sticke  fast 
in  the  myre,  and  at  last  give  it  over,  or  give  their  verdict 
with  An  ignoramus,  Boccace  is  prettie  hard,  yet  understood  : 
Petrarche  harder,  but  explaned :  Dante  hardest,  but  com- 
mented. Some  doubt  if  all  aright.  Alunno  for  his  foster- 
children  hath  framed  a  worlde  of  their  wordes.  Venuti  taken 
much  paines  in  some  verie  fewe  authors ;  and  our  William 
Thomas  hath  done  prettilie ;  and  if  all  faile,  although  we 
misse  or  mistake  the  worde,  yet  make  we  up  the  sence. 
Such  making  is  marring.  Naie  all  as  good ;  but  not  as 
right.  And  not  right,  is  flat  wrong.  One  saies  of  Petrarche 
for  all :  A  thousand  strappadas  coulde  nor  compell  him  to 
confesse,  what  some  interpreters  will  make  him  saie  he  ment. 
And  a  Judicious  gentleman  of  this  lande  will  uphold,  that 
none  in  England  understands  him  thoroughly.  How  then 
ayme  we  at  Peter  Aretine,  that  is  so  wittie,  hath  such 
varietie,  and  frames  so  manie  new  words?  At  Francesco 
Doni  who  is  so  fantasticall,  &  so  strange?  At  Thomaso 


APPENDIX  237 

Garzoni  in  his  Piazza  universale ;  or  at  Allesandro  Cittolini> 
in  his  Typecosmia,  who  have  more  proper  and  peculiar  words 
concerning  everie  severall  trade,  arte,  or  occupation  for  everie 
particular  toole,  or  implement  belonging  unto  them,  then 
ever  any  man  heeretofore  either  collected  in  any  booke,  or 
sawe  collected  in  any  one  language  ?  How  shall  we  under- 
stand Hanniball  Caro,  who  is  so  full  of  wittie  jestes,  sharpe 
quips,  nipping  tantes,  and  scoffing  phrases  against  that 
grave  and  learned  man  Lodivico  Castelvetri^  in  his  Apologia 
de*  Banchit  How  shall  the  English  Gentleman  come  to 
the  perfect  understanding  of  Federico  Grisone^  his  Arte  del 
Cavalcare,  who  is  so  full  of  strange  phrases,  and  unusuall 
wordes,  peculiar  onely  to  horse-manship,  and  proper  but 
to  Cavalarizzil  How  shall  we  understand  so  manie  and 
so  strange  bookes,  of  so  severall,  and  so  fantasticall  subjects 
as  be  written  in  the  Italian  toong  ?  How  shall  we,  naie  how 
may  we  ayme  at  the  Venetian,  at  the  Romane,  at  the  Lombard, 
at  the  Neapolitan^  at  so  manie,  and  so  much  differing 
Dialects,  and  Idiomes,  as  be  used  and  spoken  in  Italic, 
besides  the  Florentine?  Sure  we  must  saie  as  that  most 
intelligent  and  grave  Prelate  said,  when  he  came  new  out 
of  the  South  into  the  North,  and  was  saluted  with  a  womans 
sute  in  Northern.  Now  what  is  that  in  English  ?  If  I,  who 
many  yeeres  have  made  profession  of  this  toong,  and  in  this 
search  or  quest  of  inquirie  have  spent  most  of  my  studies ; 
yet  many  times  in  many  wordes  have  beene  so  stal'd,  and 
stabled,  as  such  sticking  made  me  blushinglie  confesse  my 
ignorance,  and  such  confession  indeede  made  me  studiouslie 
seeke  helpe,  but  such  helpe  was  not  readilie  to  be  had  at 
hande.  Then  may  your  Honors  without  any  dishonour, 
yea  what  and  whosoever  he  be  that  thinkes  himselfe  a  very 
good  Italian,  and  that  to  trip  others,  doth  alwaies  stande 
All'erta,  without  disgrace  to  himselfe,  sometimes  be  at  a 
stand,  and  standing  see  no  easie  issue,  but  for  issue  with 
a  direction,  which  in  this  mappe  I  hold,  if  not  exactlie 
delineated,  yet  conveniently  prickt  out.  Is  all  then  in  this 


238    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST  YEARS 

little?  All  I  knowe :  and  more  (I  know)  then  yet  in  any 
other.  Though  most  of  these  you  know  alreadie,  yet  have 
I  enough,  if  you  know  anie  thing  more  then  you  knew,  by 
this.  The  retainer  doth  some  service,  that  now  and  then 
but  holds  your  Honors  styrrop,  or  lendes  a  hande  over  a 
stile,  or  opens  a  gappe  for  easier  passage,  or  holds  a  torch 
in  a  darke  waie  :  enough  to  weare  your  Honors  cloth.  Such 
then  since  this  may  proove,  proove  it  (right  Honorable)  and 
reproove  not  for  it  my  rudenes,  or  my  rashnes ;  rudenes  in 
presuming  so  high,  rashnes  in  assuming  so  much  for  it  that 
yet  is  unaprooved.  Some  perhaps  will  except  against  the 
sexe,  and  not  allowe  it  for  a  male-broode,  sithens  as  our 
Italians  saie,  Le  parole  sono  femine,  &  i  fatti  sono  maschy, 
Wordes  they  are  women,  and  deeds  they  are  men.  But  let 
such  know  that  Detti  and  fatti,  wordes  and  deeds  with  me 
are  all  of  one  gender.  And  although  they  were  commonly 
Feminine,  why  might  not  I  by  strong  imagination  (which 
Phisicions  give  so  much  power  unto)  alter  their  sexe  ?  Or 
at  least  by  such  heaven-pearcing  devotion  as  transformed 
Iphis,  according  to  that  description  of  the  Poet. 

"Et  ognimembro  suo  piu  forte  e  sciolto 

Sente,  e  volge  allamadre  il  motto,  e'l  lume. 
Come  vero  fanciullo  esser  vede 

Iphi  va  con  parole  alme,  e  devote 
Altempio  con  la  madre,  e  la  nutrice, 

E  paga  il  voto,  e'l  suo  miracoldice. 

Feeling  more  vigor  in  each  part  and  strength 
Then  earst,  and  that  indeede  she  was  a  boy. 

Towards  hir  mother  eies  and  wordes  at  length 
She  turns,  and  at  the  temple  with  meeke  joy 

He  and  his  nurse  and  mother  utter  how 
The  case  fell  out,  and  so  he  paide  his  vow." 

And  so  his  strength,  his  stature,  and  his  masculine  vigor 
(I  would,  naie  I  coulde  saie  vertue)  makes  me  assure  his 
sexe,  and  according  to  his  sexe  provide  so  autenticall 
testimonies.  Laie  then  your  blisse-full  handes  on  his  head 


APPENDIX  239 

(right  Honorable)  and  witnes  that  he  by  me  devoted  to  your 
Honors,  forsakes  my  private  cell,  all  retired  conceites,  and 
selfe-respects  to  serve  you  in  the  worlde,  the  world  in  you  ; 
and  beleeves  in  your  Honors  goodnes,  in  proportion  as  his 
service  shall  be  of  moment  and  effectuall ;  and  that  you  will 
not  onely  in  due  censure  be  his  judges,  but  on  true  judgement 
his  protectors  ;  and  in  this  faith  desires  to  be  numbered  in 
your  familie ;  so  in  your  studies  to  attend,  as  your  least 
becke  may  be  his  dieugarde ;  for  he  hath  toong  to  answer, 
words  at  will,  and  wants  not  some  wit,  though  he  speake 
plaine  what  each  thing  is.  So  have  I  crost  him,  and  so  blest 
him,  your  god-childe,  and  your  servant ;  that  you  may 
likewise  give  him  your  blessing,  if  it  be  but  as  when  one 
standes  you  in  steede,  supplies  you,  or  pleases  you,  you  saie, 
Gods-blessing  on  him.  But  though  in  the  fore-front  he 
beares  your  Honorable  names,  it  may  be  demanded  how 
is  it,  your  Honors  gave  not  him  his  name  ?  Heerein  (right 
Honorable)  beare  with  the  fondnes  of  his  mother,  my 
Mistresse  Muse,  who  seeing  hir  female  Arescusa  turn'd  to  a 
pleasing  male  Arescon  (as  Plinie  tels  of  one)  beg'd  (as 
some  mothers  use)  that  to  the  fathers  name  she  might 
prefixe  a  name  befitting  the  childes  nature.  So  cald  she 
him,  A  worlde  of  wordes  :  since  as  the  Univers  containes  all 
things,  digested  in  best  equipaged  order,  embellisht  with 
innumerable  ornaments  by  the  universall  creator.  And  as 
Tipocosmia  imaged  by  Allesandro  Cittolini,  and  Fabrica  del 
mondo,  framed  by  Francesco  Alunnoy  and  Piazza  universale 
set  out  by  Thomaso  Garzoni  tooke  their  names  of  the  universall 
worlde,  in  words  to  represent  things  of  the  world :  as  words 
are  types  of  things,  and  everie  man  by  himselfe  a  little  world 
in  some  resemblances ;  so  thought  she,  she  did  see  as  great 
capacitie,  and  as  meete  method  in  this,  as  in  those  latter,  and 
(as  much  as  there  might  be  in  Italian  and  English)  a  modell 
of  the  former,  and  therefore  as  good  cause  so  to  entitle  it. 
If  looking  into  it,  it  looke  like  the  Sporades,  or  scattered 
Hands,  rather  than  one  well-joynted  or  close-joyned  bodie, 


240    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

or  one  coherent  orbe :  your  Honors  knowe,  an  armie  ranged 
in  files  is  fitter  for  muster,  then  in  a  ring;  and  jewels  are 
sooner  found  in  severall  boxes,  then  all  in  one  bagge.  If  in 
these  rankes  the  English  outnumber  the  Italian,  congratulate 
the  copie  and  varietie  of  our  sweete-mother  toong,  which 
under  this  most  Excellent  well-speaking  Princesse  or  Ladie 
of  the  worlde  in  all  languages  is  growne  as  farre  beyond  that 
of  former  times,  as  her  most  flourishing  raigne  for  all  happines 
is  beyond  the  raignes  of  former  Princes.  Right  Honorable, 
I  feare  me  I  have  detained  your  Honors  too  long  with  so 
homelie  entertainment,  yet  being  the  best  the  meanenes  of 
my  skill  can  affborde;  which  intending  as  my  childes 
christening-banquet,  heereunto  I  presumed  to  invite  your 
Honors:  but  I  hope  what  was  saide  at  you  Honors  first 
comming  (I  meane  in  the  beginning  of  my  Epistle)  shall  serve 
for  a  finall  excuse.  And  in  conclusion  (most  Honorable) 
once  againe  at  your  departure  give  me  leave  to  commend 
this  sonne  of  mine  to  your  favourable  protections,  and  advowe 
him  yours,  with  this  licence,  that  as  Henricus  Stephanus 
dedicated  his  Treasure  of  the  Greeke  toong  to  Maximilian 
the  Emperour,  to  Charles  the  French  king,  and  to  Elizabeth 
our  dread  Soveraigne,  and  by  their  favours  to  their  Univer- 
sities :  So  I  may  consecrate  this  lesser-volume  of  little-lesse 
value,  but  of  like  import,  first,  to  your  triple-Honors,  then 
under  your  protections  to  all  Italian-English,  or  English- 
Italian  students.  Vouchsafe  then  (highlie  Honorable)  as  of 
manie  made  for  others,  yet  made  knowne  to  your  Honors,  so 
of  this  to  take  knowledge,  who  was  borne,  bred,  and  brought 
foorth  for  your  Honors  chiefe  service ;  though  more  service 
it  may  do,  to  many  others,  that  more  neede  it ;  since  manie 
make  as  much  of  that,  which  is  made  for  them,  as  that  they 
made  them-selves,  and  of  adopted,  as  begotten  children  ;  yea 
Adrian  the  Emperour  made  more  of  those  then  these ;  since 
the  begotten  are  such  as  fates  give  us,  the  adopted  such  as 
choice  culs  us;  they  oftentimes  Stolti>  sgarbati,  &  inutili, 
these  ever  with  Corpo  intiero,  leggiadre  membra^  emente  sana. 


APPENDIX  241 

Accepting  therefore  of  the  childe,  I  hope  your  Honors  wish 
as  well  to  the  Father,  who  to  your  Honors  all-devoted  wisheth 
meeds  of  your  merits,  renowme  of  your  vertues,  and  health  of 
your  persons,  humblie  with  gracious  leave  kissing  your  thrice- 
honored  hands,  protesteth  to  continue  ever 

Your  Honors  most  humble  and 

bounden  in  true  service, 

JOHN  FLORIO. 


16 


IV 

ADDRESS  TO  THE  READER  FROM  FLORIO'S 
WORLDE  OF  WORDES,  1598 

To  THE  READER 

I  KNOW  not  how  I  may  again  adventure  an  Epistle  to  the 
reader,  so  are  these  times,  or  readers  in  these  times,  most 
part  sicke  of  the  sullens,  and  peevish  in  their  sicknes,  and 
conceited  in  their  peevishnes.  So  should  I  feare  the  fire, 
that  have  felt  the  flame  so  lately,  and  flie  from  the  sea,  that 
have  yet  a  vow  to  pay  for  escaping  my  last  shipwracke. 
Then  what  will  the  world  say  for  ventring  againe  ?  A  fuo 
danno,  one  will  say.  Et  a  torto  si  lamenta  del  mare,  chi  due 
volte  civoul  tornare,  will  another  say.  Good  council  indeede, 
but  who  followeth  it  ?  Doe  we  not  daily  see  the  contrarie  in 
practise  ?  Who  loves  to  be  more  on  the  sea,  then  they  that 
have  been  most  on  it  ?  Whither  for  change  if  they  have  kept 
at  a  stay :  or  for  amends  if  they  have  lost :  or  for  increase  if 
they  have  gotten.  Of  these  there  are  ynow  and  wise-ynough 
to  excuse  me.  Therefore  I  have  put  forward  at  aventure: 
But  before  I  recount  unto  thee  (gentle  reader)  the  purpose  of 
my  new  voyage :  give  me  leave  a  little  to  please  my  selfe 
and  refresh  thee  with  the  discourse  of  my  olde  danger. 
Which  because  in  some  respect  is  a  common  danger,  the 
discoverie  thereof  may  happily  profit  other  men,  as  much  as 
please  myselfe.  And  here  might  I  begin  with  those  notable 
Pirates  in  this  our  paper-sea,  those  sea-dogs,  or  lande-Critikes, 
monsters  of  men,  if  not  beastes  rather  than  men ;  whose  teeth 


APPENDIX  243 

are  Canibals,  their  toongs  adder-forkes,  their  lips  aspes-poyson, 
their  eies  basiliskes,  their  breath  the  breath  of  a  grave,  their 
wordes  like  swordes  of  Turkes,  that  strive  which  shall  dive 
deepest  into  a  Christian  lying  bound  before  them.  But  for 
these  barking  and  biting  dogs,  they  are  as  well  knowne  as 
Scylla  and  Charybdis. 

There  is  another  sort  of  leering  curs,  that  rather  snarle 
than  bite,  whereof  I  coulde  instance  in  one,  who  lighting 
upon  a  good  sonnet  of  a  gentlemans,  a  friend  of  mine,  that 
loved  better  to  be  a  Poet,  then  to  be  counted  so,  called  the 
auctor  a  rymer,  notwithstanding  he  had  more  skill  in  good 
Poetrie,  then  my  slie  gentleman  seemed  to  have  in  good 
manners  or  humanitie.  But  my  quarrell  is  to  a  tooth-lesse 
dog  that  hateth  where  he  cannot  hurt,  and  would  faine  bite, 
when  he  hath  no  teeth.  His  name  is  H.  S.  Doe  not  take 
it  for  the  Romane  H.  S.  for  he  is  not  of  so  much  worth, 
unlesse  it  be  as  H.  S.  is  twice  as  much  and  a  halfe  as  halfe 
an  As.  But  value  him  how  you  will,  I  am  sure  he  highly 
valueth  himselfe.  This  fellow,  this  H.  S.  reading  (for  I  would 
you  should  knowe  he  is  a  reader  and  a  writer  too)  under  my 
last  epistle  to  the  reader  I.  F.  made  as  familiar  a  word  of 
F.  as  if  I  had  bin  his  brother.  Now  Recte  fit  oculis  magister 
tuis,  said  an  ancient  writer  to  a  much-like  reading  gramarian- 
pedante:  God  save  your  eie-sight,  sir,  or  at  least  your  in- 
sight. And  might  not  a  man  that  can  do  as  much  as  you 
(that  is,  reade)  finde  as  much  matter  out  of  H.  S.  as  you  did 
out  of  I.  F.  ?  As  for  example,  H.  S.  why  may  it  not  stand 
as  well  for  Haerus  Stultitiae,  as  for  Homo  Simplex  ?  or  for 
Hara  Suillina,  as  for  Hostis  Studioforum?  or  for  Hircus 
Satiricus,  as  well  as  for  any  of  them  ?  And  this  in  Latine, 
besides  Hedera  Seguice,  Harpia  Subata,  Humore  Superbo, 
Hipocrito  Simulatore  in  Italian.  And  in  English  world 
without  end,  Hufife  Snuffe,  Horse  Stealer,  Hob  Sowter, 
Hugh  Sot,  Humfrey  Swineshead,  Hodge  Sowgelder.  Now 
Master  H.  S.  if  this  doe  gaule  you,  forbeare  kicking  here- 
after, and  in  the  meane  time  you  may  make  you  a  plaister  of 


244    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

your  dride  Maroram.  I  have  scene  in  my  daies  an  inscription, 
harder  to  finde  out  the  meaning,  and  yet  easier  for  a  man 
to  picke  a  better  meaning  out  of  it,  if  he  be  not  a  man  of 
H.  S.  condition.  There  is  a  most  excellent  preface  to  the 
excellently  translated  booke  signed  A.  B.  which  when  I 
sawe,  I  eftsoones  conceived,  could  I  in  perusing  the  whole 
ABC  omit  the  needelesse,  and  well  order  the  requisite 
letters,  I  should  find  some  such  thing  as  Admirabilis  Bonitas, 
or  Amantum  Beatissumus.  But  how  long  thinke  you  would 
H.  S.  have  bin  rooting  and  grunting  ere  he  could  have  found 
as  he  is  Hominum  Simplicissimus,  or  would  have  pickt  out 
as  he  is  Hirudo  Sanguifuga,  so  honest  a  meaning?  Trust 
me  I  cannot  but  marvell  at  the  disposition  of  these  men,  who 
are  so  malicious  as  they  will  not  spare  to  stab  others,  though 
it  be  through  their  owne  bodies,  and  wrong  other  men  with 
their  owne  double  harme.  Such  mens  wordes  a  wise  man 
compares  to  boltes  shot  right-up  against  heaven,  that  come 
not  neare  heaven,  but  downe  againe  upon  their  pates  that 
shot  them:  or  a  man  may  compare  them  to  durt  flung  at 
another  man,  which  besides  it  defiles  his  handes  that  flings 
it,  possibly  it  is  blowne  backe  againe  upon  his  owne  face :  or 
to  monie  put  out  to  usurie,  that  returnes  with  increase,  so 
they  delivered  with  hatred,  are  repaide  with  much  more :  or 
to  the  blasting  Sereno  in  hot  countries,  rising  from  puddles, 
dunghils,  carions,  putrified  dampes,  poysoned  lakes,  that 
being  detestable  itselfe,  makes  that  much  more  detested  from 
whence  it  comes.  On  the  other  side  a  good  word  is  a  deaw 
from  heaven  to  earth,  that  soakes  into  the  roote  and  sends 
forth  fruite  from  earth  to  heaven :  it  is  a  precious  balme, 
that  hath  sweetenesse  in  the  boxe,  whence  it  comes,  sweet- 
nesse  and  vertue  in  the  bodie,  whereto  it  comes:  it  is  a 
golden  chaine,  that  linkes  the  toongs,  and  eares,  and  harts 
of  writers  and  readers,  each  to  other.  They  hurt  not  God 
(faith  Seneca)  but  their  owne  soules,  that  overthrowe  his 
altars :  Nor  harme  they  good  men,  but  themselves,  that 
turns  their  sacrifice  of  praises  into  blasphemie.  They  that 


APPENDIX  245 

rave,  and  rage,  and  raile  against  heaven  I  say  not  (faith  be) 
they  are  guiltie  of  sacrilege,  but  at  least  they  loose  their 
labour.  Let  Aristophanes  and  his  comedians  make  plaies, 
and  scowre  their  mouthes  on  Socrates ;  those  very  mouthes 
they  make  to  vilifie,  shall  be  the  meanes  to  amplifie  his 
vertue.  And  as  it  was  not  easie  for  Cato  to  speake  evill,  so 
was  it  not  usuall  for  him  to  hear  evill :  it  may  be  SOCRATES 
would  not  kicke  againe,  if  an  asse  did  kicke  at  him,  yet  some 
that  cannot  be  so  wise,  and  will  not  be  so  patient  as  Socrates, 
will  for  such  jadish  tricks  give  the  asse  his  due  burthen  of 
bastonadas.  Let  H.  S.  hisse,  and  his  complices  quarrell,  and 
all  breake  their  gals,  I  have  a  great  faction  of  good  writers 
to  bandie  with  me. 

"Think  they  to  set  their  teeth  on  tender  stuffe? 
But  they  shall  marre  their  teeth,  and  finde  me  tough." 

Conantes  frangere  frangam,  said  Victoria  Collonna : 

"Those  that  to  breake  me  strive, 
Fie  breake  them  if  I  thrive." 

Yet  had  not  H.  S.  so  causelesly,  so  witlesly  provoked  me, 
I  coulde  not  have  bin  hired,  or  induced  against  my  nature, 
against  my  manner  thus  far  to  have  urged  him :  though 
happily  heereafter  I  shall  rather  contemne  him,  then  farther 
pursue  him.  He  is  to  blame  (faith  Martiall,  and  further  he 
brandes  him  with  a  knavish  name)  that  will  be  wittie  in 
another  mans  booke.  How  then  will  scoffing  readers  scape 
this  marke  of  a  maledizant  ?  whose  wits  have  no  other  worke, 
nor  better  worth  then  to  flout,  and  fall  out  ?  It  is  a  foule 
blemish  that  Paterculus  findes  in  the  face  of  the  Gracchi. 
They  had  good  wits,  but  used  them  ill.  But  a  fouler  blot 
then  a  Jewes  letter  is  it  in  the  foreheads  of  Gaelics  and  Curio, 
that  he  sets,  Ingeniose  nequam,  they  were  wittily  wicked. 
Pitie  it  is  but  evermore  wit  should  be  vertuous,  vertue  gentle, 
gentrie  studious,  students  gracious.  Let  follie  be  dishonest, 
dishonestie  unnoble,  ignobilitie  scandalous  and  scandall 


246    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

slanderous.  Who  then  are  they  that  mispend  all  their 
leisure,  yea  take  their  cheefe  pleasure  in  back  biting  well- 
deservers  ?  I  see  and  am  sorie  to  see  a  sort  of  men,  whose 
fifth  element  is  malediction,  whose  life  is  infamie,  whose 
death  damnation,  whose  daies  are  surfeiting,  whose  nights 
lecherie,  yea  such  as  Nanna  could  never  teach  Pippa,  nor 
Comare  and  Balia  discourse  of  and  whose  couches  are 
Spintries;  whose  thrift  is  usurie,  meales  gluttonie,  exercise 
cousenage,  whose  valour  bragardrie,  Astolpheidas,  or  Rodo- 
montadas,  or  if  it  come  to  action,  crueltie;  whose  com- 
munication is  Atheisme,  contention,  detraction,  or  Paillardise, 
most  of  lewdness,  seld  of  vertue,  never  of  charitie ;  whose 
spare-time  is  vanitie  or  villanie:  yet  will  I  not  deale  by 
them,  as  they  doe  by  others.  I  like  not  reproofe  where  it 
pertaines  not  to  me:  But  if  they  like  to  see  their  owne 
pictures  in  lively  colours  of  their  own  ornaments,  habille- 
ments,  attendants,  observances,  studies,  amours,  religions, 
games,  travels,  imployments,  furnitures,  let  them  as  gentle- 
men (for  so  I  construe  Nobiles,  and  more  they  be  not,  if 
they  be  no  lesse)  goe  to  the  Painters  shop,  or  looking-glasse 
of  Ammianus  Marcellinus,  an  unpartiall  historian,  in  his 
28.  booke  about  the  middle,  and  blush,  and  amend,  and 
think,  that  thence,  and  out  of  themselves  I  might  well  draw 
a  long  declamation :  they  that  understand  him,  will  agnise 
this ;  they  that  doe  not,  let  them  learne :  let  both  conceive, 
how  they  conforme,  and  both  reforme  their  deformities ;  or  if 
they  will  not,  at  least  let  them  forbeare  to  blur  others  because 
they  are  blacke  themselves,  least  it  be  saide  to  them,  as 
Seneca  saide  to  one  not  unfitely,  Te  fera  scabies  depascitur, 
tu  naeuos  rides  pulchriorum?  this  let  them  construe,  and 
take  to  them  the  meaning  of  their  labour.  And  though  I 
more  then  feare  much  detracting  :  for  I  have  already  tasted 
some,  and  that  extraordinarie  though  in  an  ordinarie  place, 
where  my  childe  was  beaten  ere  it  was  borne :  some  divining 
of  his  imperfectnes  for  his  English  part ;  some  fore-speaking 
his  generall  weakenes,  and  very  gently  seeming  to  pitie  his 


APPENDIX  247 

fathers.  And  one  averring  he  could  beget  a  better  of  his 
owne,  which  like  ynough  he  can,  and  hath  done  many  a  one, 
God  forgive  him.  But  the  best  is,  my  sonne  with  all  his 
faultes  shall  approove  himself  no  misse-begotten.  And  for 
those  exceptions,  knowing  from  whom  they  come,  I  were 
very  weake-minded  if  they  coulde  anything  moove  me.  And 
that  husbandman  might  be  counted  very  simple,  that  for  the 
ominous  shreekes  of  an  unluckie,  hoarce-voist,  dead-devour- 
ing night-raven  or  two,  or  for  feare  of  the  malice  of  his  worst 
conditioned  neighbors,  would  neglect  either  to  till  and  sowe 
his  ground,  or  after  in  due  time  to  reape  and  thresh  out  his 
harvest,  that  might  benefite  so  many  others  with  that,  which 
both  their  want  might  desire,  and  their  thankfulness  would 
deserve.  So  did  I  intend  my  first  seede,  so  doe  I  my  harvest. 
The  first  fruites  onely  reserved  to  my  Honorable  Patrones, 
the  rest  to  every  woorthie  Ladie  and  gentleman  that  pleases 
to  come  and  buy ;  and  though  I  doubt  not  but  ravens  and 
crowes  both,  will  have  a  graine  or  two  now  and  then  in  spite 
of  my  teeth,  especially  H.  S.  who  is  so  many  graines  too 
light :  yet  I  am  well  content  to  repay  good  for  evill,  thinking 
it  not  impossible  that  by  the  taste  of  the  corne  those  very 
soules  may  in  time  have  their  mouthes  stopt  for  speaking 
evill  against  the  husbandman.  And  let  this  comparison  of  a 
labouring  man  by  the  way  put  you  in  minde  (gentle  reader) 
of  his  labours,  that  hath  laboured  so  much,  and  so  long  to 
save  you  a  labour,  which  I  doubt  not  but  he  may  as  justly 
stand  upon  in  this  toong-work,  as  in  Latin  Sir  Thomas  Eliot, 
Bishop  Cooper,  and  after  them  Thomas  Thomas,  and  John 
Rider  have  done  amongst  us :  and  in  Greeks  and  Latin  both 
the  Stephans,  the  father  and  the  sonne,  who  notwithstanding 
the  helpes  each  of  them  had,  yet  none  of  them  but  thought 
he  might  challenge  speciall  thankes  for  his  special  travell,  to 
better  purpose  then  any  before  him.  And  if  they  did  so 
in  those  toongs,  where  they  had  so  many,  and  so  great 
helpes,  and  in  toongs  which  were  helpes  to  one  another; 
they  that  understande,  will  easily  acknowledge  the  difference 


248    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

betwixt  my  paines  and  theirs  :  yet  I  desire  no  pre-eminence  of 
thankes ;  but  either  equall  thankes,  or  equall  excuse.  And 
well  may  I  make  that  comparison  betwixt  our  labours,  that 
Allessandro  Cittolini  maketh  in  his  Tipocosmia:  we  all 
fared  indeed  like  sea-faring  men  (according  to  my  first  com- 
parison) and  lanched  foorth  into  a  deepe,  and  dangerous  sea, 
but  they  had  this  advantage  of  me,  that  they  were  many  to 
steere  a  passage-boate ;  I  was  but  one  to  turne  and  winde 
the  sailes,  to  use  the  oare,  to  sit  at  sterne,  to  pricke  my  carde, 
to  watch  upon  the  upper  decke,  boate-swaine,  pilot,  mate,  and 
master,  all  offices  in  one,  and  that  in  a  more  unruly,  more 
unweildie,  and  more  roome-some  vessell,  then  the  biggest 
hulke  on  Thames,  or  burthen-bearing  Caracke  in  Spaine,  or 
slave-tiring  Gallic  in  Turkic,  and  that  in  a  sea  more  divers, 
more  dangerous,  more  stormie,  and  more  comfortlesse  then 
any  Ocean.  If  any  thinke  I  had  great  helpes  of  Alunno,  or 
of  Venuti,  let  him  confer,  and  knowe  I  have  in  two,  yea 
almost  in  one  of  my  letters  of  the  Alphabet,  more  wordes, 
then  they  have  in  all  their  twentie ;  and  they  are  but  for  a 
few  auctors  in  the  Italian  toong,  mine  for  most  that  write 
well,  as  may  appeere  by  the  Catalog  of  bookes  that  I  have 
read  through  of  purpose  for  the  accomplishing  of  this 
Dictionarie.  I  would  not  meddle  with  their  defects  and 
errors  nor  yet  amplifie  the  fulnesse  or  perfection  of  my 
owne  worke,  farther  then  upon  a  just  ground  to  satisfie  his 
good  desire  that  wisheth  the  best  helpe.  If  any  man  aske 
whether  all  Italian  wordes  be  here?  I  answer  him,  it  may 
be  no :  and  yet  I  thinke  heere  be  as  many,  as  he  is  likely  to 
finde  (that  askes  the  question)  within  the  compasse  of  his 
reading;  and  yet  he  may  have  read  well  too.  I  should 
thinke  that  very  few  wordes  could  escape  those  auctors  I 
have  set  downe,  which  I  have  read  of  purpose  to  the  absolute 
accomplishing  of  this  worke,  being  the  most  principall, 
choisest,  and  difficult  in  the  toong;  especially  writing  in 
such  varietie  not  onely  of  matters,  but  of  dialects  :  but  what 
I  aske  him  againe,  how  many  hundred  wordes  he,  and 


APPENDIX  249 

possibly  his  teachers  too  were  gravelled  in  ?  which  he  shall 
finde  here  explaned?  If  no  other  bookes  can  be  so  well 
perfected,  but  still  some  thing  may  be  added,  how  much 
lesse  a  Word-booke?  Since  daily  both  new  wordes  are 
invented ;  and  bookes  still  found,  that  make  a  new  supplie 
of  olde.  We  see  the  experience  in  Latin,  a  limited  toong, 
that  is  at  his  full  growth:  and  yet  if  a  man  consider  the 
reprinting  of  Latin  Dictionaries,  ever  with  addition  of  new 
store,  he  would  thinke  it  were  still  increasing.  And  yet  in 
these  Dictionaries  as  in  all  other  that  that  is  printed  still  is 
reputed  perfect.  And  so  it  is  no  doubt  after  the  customarie 
and  possible  perfection  of  a  Dictionarie,  which  kinde  of 
perfection  if  I  chalenge  to  mine  (especially  considering  the 
yeerelt  increase,  which  is  as  certainly  in  this,  in  French,  in 
Spanish,  in  Dutch,  &c.,  as  we  find  by  experience  it  is  in 
English ;  and  I  thinke  I  may  well  saie  more  in  this,  then  in 
the  rest ;  yea  and  in  the  rest  mostly  from  this)  I  hope  no 
man  that  shall  expend  the  woorth  of  this  worke  in  impartiall 
examination,  will  thinke  I  challenge  more  then  is  due  to  it. 
And  for  English-gentlemen  me  thinks  it  must  needs  be  a 
pleasure  to  them,  to  see  so  rich  a  toong  out-vide  by  their 
mother-speech,  as  by  the  manie-folde  Englishes  or  manie 
wordes  in  this  is  manifest  ?  The  want  whereof  in  England 
heeretofore,  I  might  justly  say  in  all  Europe,  might  more 
endeare  the  woorth.  Though  without  it  some  knew  much, 
yet  none  knew  all  Italian,  as  all  may  do  by  this.  That  well 
to  know  Italian  is  a  grace  of  all  graces,  without  exception, 
which  I  ever  exemplifie  in  her  gracious  Highnes;  whose 
due-deserved-praises  set  foorth  aright  I  may  rightly  say,  as 
a  notable  Italian  writer  saide  earst  of  hir  most-renowmed 
father  of  famous  memorie,  Che  per  capir  le  giufte  lodi  della 
quale  conuerrebbe  o  che  il  cieli  s'inalzaffe,  o  ch'il  mondo 
s'allargaffe ;  or  as  the  moderne  Italian  Homer  saide  of  a 
Queene  far  inferious  to  hir  thrice-sacred  Majestic,  Che  le 
glorie  altrui  si  esprimono  scrivendo  e  parlando,  quelle  di  fua 
serenissima  e  sacratissima  Maesta  si  possono  solo  esprimere 


250    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST    YEARS 

maravigliando  e  tacendo.  Of  whose  innumerable  excellen- 
cies, is  not  the  fore-most,  yet  most  famous  I  have  heard,  and 
often  have  had  the  good  hap  and  comfort  to  see,  that  no 
Embassador  or  stranger  hath  audience  of  hir  Majestic,  but 
in  his  native  toong ;  and  none  hath  answere  but  in  the  same ; 
or  in  the  common  toongs  of  Greeke  and  Latin,  by  hir  sacred 
lips  pronounced.  That  the  best  by  hir  patterne  desire  to 
doe  as  much,  I  doubt  not;  but  I  doubt  how  they  can 
without  such  helpe,  and  that  such  helpe  was  to  be  had  till 
now.  I  denie:  yet  doe  I  understand  that  a  gentleman  of 
worshipful  account,  well  travelled,  well  conceited,  and  well 
experienced  in  the  Italian,  hath  in  this  very  kinde  taken 
great  pains,  and  made  as  great  proofes  of  his  inestimable 
worth.  Glad  would  I  be  to  see  that  worke  abroad ;  some 
sight  whereof  gave  me  twenty  yeeres  since  the  first  light  to 
this.  But  since  he  suppresseth  his,  for  private  respects,  or 
further  perfection,  nor  he,  nor  others  will  (I  hope)  prize  this 
the  lesse.  I  could  here  enter  into  a  large  discourse  of  the 
Italian  toong,  and  of  the  teachers  and  teaching  thereof,  and 
shew  the  ease  and  facilities  of  it,  with  setting  downe  some 
few,  yea  very  few  observations  whereunto  the  Italian  toong 
may  be  reduced :  which  some  of  good  sort  and  experience 
have  merrily  compared  to  jugling-tricks,  all  which  afore  a 
man  know  or  discover  how  they  are  done,  one  would  judge 
to  be  very  hard  and  difficult ;  but  after  a  man  hath  scene 
them  and  knowes  them,  they  are  deemed  but  slight  and 
easie.  And  I  was  once  purposed  for  the  benefite  of  all 
learners  to  have  done  it,  and  to  have  shewed  why  through 
my  Dictionarie  I  have  in  all  verbs  of  the  first  conjugation 
onely  set  downe  the  Infinitive  moode,  except  it  be  of  fower 
irregular  verbes,  and  wherefore  in  all  of  the  seconde  and 
thirde  conjugations  I  have  noted  besides  the  Infinitive 
moode,  the  first  person  singular  of  the  present-tence  of  the 
Indicative  moode,  the  first  person  singular  of  the  first 
preterperfect-tence  of  the  Indicative,  and  the  participle. 
And  why  in  the  verbes  of  the  fourth  conjugation,  I  have 


APPENDIX  251 

besides  the  Infinitive  moode,  the  participle,  the  first  person 
singular  of  the  present-tence  of  the  Indicative  moode  of 
some  very  few,  and  not  of  all,  and  how  by  those  fewe  onely 
one  may  frame  all  the  persons  of  all  the  tences  of  all  the 
verbes  in  the  Italian  toong  ;  without  the  knowledge  of  which, 
and  of  those  few  observations  glanced  at  before,  no  man  can 
or  shall  ever  learne  to  speake  or  write  true  Italian  in 
England:  But  that  I  understand  there  be  some  that  are 
perswaded,  yea  and  affirme,  that  nothing  can  be  set  down 
either  by  me,  or  any  else  that  they  have  not  or  knowe  not 
before ;  and  I  am  informed,  that  some  would  not  be  ashamed 
to  protest  they  knewe  as  much  before :  and  therefore  contrarie 
to  my  first  resolution  I  forbeare  to  doe  it,  grieving  that  for 
their  sakes  the  gentle  reader  and  learner  shall  be  barred  of 
so  necessarie  a  scale  of  the  Italian  toong.  If  these,  or  others 
thinke  of  this  no  such  paines,  little  price,  or  lesse  profit  then 
I  talke  of,  I  onely  wish,  they  felt  but  halfe  my  paines  for  it ; 
or  let  them  leave  this,  and  tie  themselves  to  the  like  taske, 
and  then  let  the  fruites  of  our  labors,  and  the  reapers  of  the 
fruites  judge  betwixt  us  whose  paines  hath  sorted  to  best 
perfection  :  which  ere  long  (if  God  sende  me  life,  and  blesse 
these  labors)  I  meane  to  perfect  with  addition  of  the  French 
and  Latine,  and  with  the  wordes  of  some  twenty  good 
Italian  auctors,  that  I  could  never  obtaine  the  sight  of,  and 
hope  shortly  to  enjoy :  And  I  intend  also  to  publish  and 
annexe  unto  this,  an  Alphabeticall  English  Dictionarie,  that 
any  man  knowing  but  the  English  word,  shall  presently 
finde  the  Italian  for  it.  Meane-while  I  wish  to  thee,  as  of  me 
thou  shalt  deserve,  and  wish  of  thee  as  I  knowe  of  thee  I 
have  deserved.  Resolute 

JOHN  FLORIO. 


WILL  OF  JOHN  FLORIO 

IN  the  blessed  name  of  God  the  Father  my  gracious  Creator 
and  Maker,  of  God  the    Sonne   Jesus    Christ   my  merciful 
Savyor  and  Redeemer,  and  of  God  the  Holie  Ghost  three 
persons  and  one  ever  liveing  and  omnipotent  God,  in  unity 
and  Trinity  my  most  loving  Comforter  and  preserver  Amen. 
I   John    Florio   of  Fulham   in   the   Countie   of   Middlesex 
Esqre,  being  of  good  health  and  sound  minde  and  perfect 
memory,  hearty  thankes  bee  ever  ascribed  and  given  therefore 
unto  Almighty  God,  And  well  in  remembering  and  knowing 
that  nothing  is  more  certayne  unto  mortall  man  than  death 
and  noe  one  thing  more  uncertayne  then  is  the  houre  therof, 
doe  make  appoint  pronounce  and  declare  this  my  Testament 
therin  fully  contayning  my  last  direct  and  unrevocable  will 
and  intention  in  manner  and  forme  following ;  That  is   to 
say,  First  and  principally  as  duty  and  Christianity  willeth 
mee   I  most  heartily  and  penitently   sorrowfull  for  all  my 
sinnes  com  mitt  and  recommend  my  soule  into  the  mercifull 
handes  of  Almighty  God,  assuredly  trusting  and  faithfully 
beleeving  by  the  onely  meritts  bitter  passion  precious  blood 
and  glorious  death  of  the  immaculate  Lambe  Jesus  Christ 
his  Sonne,  to  have  full  remission  and  absolute  forgiveness  of 
all   my  sinnes  whatsoever,  and  after  this  transitory  life  to 
live  and  raigne  with  him  in  his  most  blessed  Kingdome  of 
heaven.     As  for  my  wretched  Body  I  committe  the  same  as 
earth  to  earth  and  dust  to  dust  to  be  buried  in  such  decent 
order  as  to  my  deare  Wife  and  by  my  executors  here  under- 
named   shalbee   thought   meete   and  convenient.      And   as 
touching  the  disposing  and  ordering  of  all  and  whatsoever 
such    goodes   cattle,  chattle,   Leases,   monie,  plate,  Jewells, 

252 


APPENDIX  258 

bookes,  apparrell,  bedding,  hangings,  peawter,  brasse,  house- 
hold  stuffe   moveables,   immoveables   and   all  other  things 
whatsoever   named   or   unnamed,   specifide   or    unspecifide, 
wherwith   my   most   gracious   God   hath   beene  pleased  to 
endowe  mee  with  or  hereafter  shall  of  his  infinite  mercy  bee 
pleased  to  bestowe  or  conferre  upon  me  in  this  transitory  life, 
I  will  appoint  give  order  dispose  and  bequeath  all  and  every 
part  and  parcel  of  the  same  firmely  and  unalterably  to  stand 
in  manner  and  forme  following,  That  is  to  say,  Item,  I  give 
and  bequeath  unto  my  daughter  Aurelia  Molins  the  Wed- 
ding Ring  wherewith  I  married  her  mother,  being  aggrieved 
at  my  very  heart  that  by  reason  of  my  poverty  I  am  not  able 
to  leave  her  anything  els.     Item,  I  give  and  bequeath  as  a 
poore  token  of  my  love  to  my  sonne  in  law  James  Molins,  a 
faire  black  velvett  deske  embroidered  with  seede  pearles  and 
with  a  silver  and  guilt  inkhorne  and  dust  box  therin,  that 
was  Queen   Anne's.     Item,  I  give  and  bequeath   unto  the 
right  honourable  my  sigulare  and  even  honoured  good  Lord 
William   Earle   of  Pembroke    Lord    Chamberlaine  to   the 
Kings  most  excellent  maiestie  and  one  of  his  royal  counsell 
of  state  (if  at  my  death  he  shall   then  be   living)  all  my 
Italian,  French  and  Spanish  bookes,  as  well  printed  as  un- 
printed,  being  in  number  about  Three  hundred  and  fortie, 
namely  my  new  and   perfect  dictionary,  as  also  my  tenne 
dialogues  in  Italian  and  English  and  my  unbound  volume  of 
divers    written    collections    and    rapsodies,   most    heartilie 
entreating  his  Honorable  Lordshippe  (as  hee  once  promised 
mee)  to  accept  of  them  as  a  sign  and  token  of  my  service 
and  affection  to  his  honor  and  for  my  sake  to  place  them  in 
his  library,  either  at  Wilton  or  else  at  Baynards  Castle  at 
London,  humbly  desiring  him  to  give  way  and  favourable 
assistance  that  my  dictionarie  and  dialogues  may  bee  printed 
and  the  profitt  therof  accrud  unto  my  wife.  Item,  I  doe  likewise 
give  and  bequeath  unto  his  noble  Lordship  the  Corinne  Stone 
as  a  Jewell  fitt  for  a  Prince  which  Ferdinando  the  great  Duke 
of  Tuscanie  sent  as   a   most  precious   gift   (among  divers 


254    SHAKESPEARE'S   LOST   YEARS 

others)  unto  Queen  Anne  of  blessed  memory ;  the  use  and 
vertue  wherof  is  written  in  two  pieces  of  paper,  both  in 
Italian  and  English  being  in  a  little  box  with  the  Stone, 
most  humbly  beseeching  his  honour  (as  I  right  confidently 
hope  and  trust  hee  will  in  charity  doe  if  neede  require)  to  take 
my  poore  and  deere  wife  into  his  protection  and  not  suffer 
her  to  be  wrongfully  molested  by  any  enemie  of  myne,  and 
also  in  her  extremity  to  afforde  her  his  helpe  good  worde 
and  assistance  to  my  Lord  Treasurer,  that  she  may  be  payed 
my  wages  and  the  arrearages  of  that  which  is  unpayed  or 
shall  bee  behind  at  my  death.  The  rest  the  residue  and 
remainder  of  all  whatsoever  and  singular  my  goods,  catties, 
chatties,  Jewells,  plate,  debts,  leases,  money,  or  monie  worth, 
household  stuffe,  utensills,  English  bookes,  moveables  or 
immoveables,  named  or  not  named,  and  things  whatsoever 
by  mee  before  not  given  disposed  or  bequeathed  (provided 
that  my  debts  bee  paid  and  my  funerall  discharged).  I 
wholly  give,  fully  bequeath,  absolutely  leave,  assigne  and 
unalterably  consigne  unto  my  deerly  beloved  wife  Rose  Florio, 
most  heartily  greiving  and  ever  sorrowing  that  I  cannot  give 
or  leave  her  more  in  requitall  of  her  tender  love,  loving  care 
painfull  dilligence,  and  continuall  labour,  to  me  and  of  mee  in 
all  my  fortunes  and  many  sicknesses ;  then  whome  never  had 
husband  a  more  loving  wife,  painfull  nurce,  or  comfortable 
consorte,  And  I  doe  make  institute,  ordaine,  appoint  and 
name  the  right  Reverend  Father  in  God,  Theophilus  Feild 
Lord  bishoppe  of  Landaffe  and  Mr.  Richard  Cluet  Doctor 
of  Divinity  vicar  and  preacher  of  the  word  of  God  at 
Fulham,  both  my  much  esteemed,  dearely  beloved  and 
truely  honest  good  frendes,  my  sole  and  onely  Executors  and 
overseers ;  And  I  doe  give  to  each  of  them  for  their  paines 
an  ould  greene  velvett  deske  with  a  silver  inke  and  dust  box 
in  each  of  them  that  were  sometymes  Queene  Annes  my 
Soveraigne  Mistrisse,  entreating  both  to  accept  of  them  as  a 
token  of  my  hearty  affection  towards  them,  and  to  excuse 
my  poverty  which  disableth  mee  to  requite  the  trouble, 


APPENDIX  255 

paines,  and  courtesie,  which  I  confidently  beleeve  they  will 
charitably  and  for  Gods  sake  undergoe  in  advising  directing 
and  helping  my  poore  and  deere  wife  in  executing  of  this 
my  last  and  unrevocable  will  and  testament,  if  any  should 
be  soe  malicious  or  unnaturall  as  to  crosse  or  question  the 
same;  And   I   doe   utterly  revoke  and  for  ever  renounce, 
frustrate,  disanull,  cancell  and  make  void,  all  and  whatsoever 
former  wills,  legacies,  bequests,  promises,  guifts,  executors 
or  overseers  (if  it  should  happen  that  anie  bee  forged  or 
suggested  for  untill  this  tyme,  I  never  writt  made  or  finished 
any  but  this  onely)  And  I  will  appoint  and  ordaine  that  this 
and  none  but  this  onely  written  all  with  mine  owne  hand, 
shall  stand  in  full  force  and  vigor  for  my  last  and  unrevoc- 
able will  and  Testament,  and  none  other  nor  otherwise.     As 
for  the  debts  that  I  owe  the  greatest  and  onelie  is  upon  an 
obligatory  writing  of  myne  owne  hand  which  my  daughter 
Aurelia  Molins  with  importunity  wrested  from  me  of  about 
threescore   pound,   wheras   the  truth,   and   my    conscience 
telleth  mee,  and  soe  knoweth  her  conscience,  it  is  but  thirty- 
four  pound  or  therabouts,  But  let  that  passe,  since  I  was 
soe  unheedy,  as  to  make  and  acknowledge  the  said  writing, 
I  am  willing  that  it  bee  paid  and  discharged  in  this  forme 
and    manner,   My  sonne   in   lawe  (as    daughter    his    wife 
knoweth  full  well)  hath  in  his  handes  as  a  pawne,  a  faire 
gold   ring  of    mine,  with   thirteene    faire  table   diamonds 
therein  enchased;   which  cost   Queene  Anne   my   gracious 
Mistrisse  seaven  and  forty  pounds  starline,  and  for  which  I 
might  many  tymes  have  had  forty  pounds  readie  money: 
upon  the  said  ring  my  sonne  in  the  presence  of  his  wife  lent 
me  Tenne  pound.     I  desire  him  and  pray  him  to  take  the 
overplus  of  the  said  Ring  in  parte  of  payment,  as  also  a  leaden 
Ceasterne  which  hee  hath  of  myne  standing  in  his  yard  at  his 
London-house  that  cost  mee  at  a  porte-sale  fortie  shillings, 
as  also  a  silver  candle  cup  with  a  cover  worth  about  forty 
shillings  which  I  left  at  his  house  being  sicke  there ;  desiring 
my  sonne  and  daughter  that  their  whole  debt  may  bee  made 


256    SHAKESPEARE'S    LOST   YEARS 

up  and  they  satisfied  with  selling  the  lease  of  my  house  in 
Shoe  lane,  and  soe  accquitt  and  discharge  my  poore  wife 
who  as  yet  knoweth  nothing  of  his  debt.  Moreover  I 
entreat  my  deare  wife  that  if  at  my  death  my  servant  Artur 
\blank~\  shall  chance  to  bee  with  mee  and  in  my  service,  that 
for  my  sake  she  give  him  such  poore  doubletts,  breeches, 
hattes,  and  bootes  as  I  shall  leave,  and  therwithall  one  of  my 
ould  cloakes  soe  it  bee  not  lyned  with  velvett.  In  witnesse 
whereof  I  the  said  John  Florio  to  this  my  last  will  and 
Testament  (written  every  sillable  with  myne  owne  hande, 
and  with  long  and  mature  deliberation  digested,  contayning 
foure  sheetes  of  paper,  the  first  of  eight  and  twenty  lines,  the 
second  of  nine  and  twenty,  the  third  of  nyne  and  twenty 
and  the  fourth  of  six  lines)  have  putt,  sett,  written  and 
affixed  my  name  and  usual  scale  of  my  armes.  The 
twentyth  day  of  July  in  the  yeare  of  our  Lord  and  Savyour 
Jesus  Christ  1625,  and  in  the  first  yeare  of  the  raigne  of  our 
Soveraigne  Lord  and  King  (whom  God  preserve)  Charles  the 
First  of  that  name  of  England,  Scotland,  France  and  Ireland 
King.  By  mee  John  Florio  being,  thankes  bee  ever  given 
to  my  most  gracious  God,  in  perfect  sence  and  memory. 

Proved  i  June  1626  by  Rose  Florio  the  relict,  the 
executors  named  in  the  Will  for  certain  reasons  renouncing 
execution. 

NOTE 

FLORIO  was  eighty  years  of  age  at  his  death  in  1625.  From  significant  re- 
ferences by  Shakespeare,  in  Henry  IV.,  to  Falstaff's  age,  I  have  long  been  of 
the  opinion  that  Florio  was  more  than  forty-five  years  old  in  1598,  when  the 
First  Part  of  this  play  was  revised  and  the  Second  Part  written  ;  yet  if  the  age  of 
fifty-eight,  which  Florio  gives  himself  in  the  medallion  round  his  picture  in  the 
1611  edition  of  his  Worlde  of  Wordes  is  to  be  believed,  he  was  only  forty-five  in 
1598.  I  have  now  found  Anthony  Wood's  authority  for  dating  his  birth  in  1545. 

In  Registrium  Universitatus  Oxen.,  vol.  ii.,  by  Andrew  Clark,  I  find : 
"  ist  May  1581,  Magd.  Co.,  John  Florio,  set.  36,  serviens  mei  Barnes." 

In  a  copy  of  Florio's  first  edition  of  his  Worlde  of  Wordes  in  my  library,  which 
evidently  belonged  to  his  friend  William  Godolphin,  as  his  name  is  written  in 
it,  there  is  also  written  in  an  old  hand,  under  Florio's  name  on  the  title-page, 
"born  1545." 


INDEX 


Achilles  Shield,  120 
Admiral's  company,  the  Lord,  6,  10, 
12,  50,  51,  52,  53  5  at  Dover,  54  ;  56, 
57,  59  »  identity  between  1585  and 
1589,  60;  65  ;  under  Henslowe,  73  ; 
78,  81,  82,  84,  14 

Agamemnon,  114 

Allen,  Giles,  39,  43,  45,  75 

Alleyn,  Edward,  6,  8,  9,  10,  14,  38,  61, 
62,  65,  70 ;  manager  of  Strange's 
men,  77 ;  82,  85 ;  as  Roscius,  98 ; 
100,  101 

Alleyn,  John,  8,  62 ;  servant  to  the 
Lord  Admiral,  63  ;  IO2 

Alleyn,  Richard,  105 

AWs  Well  that  Ends  Well,  163,  170, 
171,  193,  194,  195,  205 

Anatomy  of  Absurdity,  98,  99 

Anna,  Queen,  222 

Antonio,  134 

Arden,  Mary,  21,  23 

Arden,  Robert,  21 

Arden,  the  name,  21 

Ardens  of  Parkhill,  the,  21-22 

Armada,  the,  2,  131,  132 

Armado,  18,  182,  206 

Armin,  Robert,  H4n. 

Arundell's  players,  Lord,  44,  48 

Ave  Ccesar,  99 

A  visa,  129 

Aylmer,  Bishop,  140 

Bacon,  Sir  Francis,  185 

Barnes,  Barnabe,  127 

Barnstaple,  9 

Biron,  134 

Blacke  Bookes  Messenger,  The,  47  n. 

Bodleian  Library,  128 

Brandes,  Georg,  8  n. 

Brayne,  John,  39,  43,  75 

Brown,  John,  26 

Brown,  Ned,  47 

17 


Browne,  Robert,  8,  62,  65,  IO2 
Browning,  Robert,  19 
Bryan,  George,  29,  55,  60,  83 
Burbage,  Cuthbert,  44,  45,  75 
Burbage,  James,  5,  9,  11,3$;  as  theatri- 
cal manager,  38,  42,  43,  45,  52,  53, 
58,  63,  65,  67,  70,  75,  106,  126 
Burbage,  Richard,  5,  8,  14,  55,  66,  70, 

75,  77,  83,  126 
Burbie,  Cuthbert,  96  n. 
Burghley,  Lord,  n,  17,  73,  154,  155, 
173,  174 

Carey,  Henry,  Lord  Hunsdon,  50 
Castle,  William,  parish  clerk  of  Strat- 
ford, 68 

Cecil-Howard  faction,  73 
Cecil,  Sir  Robert,  17,  154,   175,  194, 

216 

Cecil,  Sir  William,  157 
Censor,  Public,  17 
Chamberlain's  company,  the  Lord,  10, 

12,  13,   14,  38,  42,  52,  57,  59,  84; 

leave  Henslowe,  86 
Chamberlain's  musicians,  the  Lord,  54 ; 

at  Coventry,  50,  60 
Chambers,  E.  K.,  56 
Chandos  portrait,  the,  HO 
Chapman,  George,   15,  23,  31,  92,  93, 

109,  114,   115,  119,   128,    167,    184, 

185,  186 

Chettle,  Henry,  93,  no,  151 
Choice  of  Valentines,  The,  128 
Chrisoganus,  120 
Classical  allusions,  79 
Cobham,  Lord,  215,  217 
Comedy  of  Beauty  and  Housewifery,  A, 

49 
Comedy  of  Errors,  The,  8,  17,  83,  148, 

152,  172 
Contention  and   True    Tragedie,   The, 

80,  147 


258     SHAKESPEARE'S    LOST   YEARS 


Cornwallis,  Sir  William,  221 

Coronet  for  my  Mistress  Philosophy,  A, 

124,  130 

Court  performances,  82 
Court  records,  13 
Coventry,  9 
Coventry  records,  54 
Cowdray  House,  37,  165,  166 
Cranmer,  Archbishop,  157 
Crosskeys,  the,  51,  53,  55,  70,  72,  73> 

77,  81 
Curtain  Theatre,  the   6,  14,  39,  44,  46, 

48,  5°,  51'  72,  74 
Cymbeline,  3 

Dame  Pintpot,  198 

Daniel,  Samuel,  159,  162 

Davenant,  Mistress,  123,  125,  184 

Davenant,  Sir  William,  36,  127 

Davies,  John,  81,  90-91 

Davison,  William,  178 

De  Guiana  Carmen  Epicum,  116 

Dekker,  Thomas,  93,  218 

Delphrygus,  103,  104 

Derby,  Countess  of,  55 

Derby,  Earl  of,  55,  115,  179 

Devereux,  Dorothy,  139 

Dialogue  of  Dives  *  104 

Diary,   Henslowe's,   7,  8,  67,  68,  75, 

77,  80,  127 
Doll  Tearsheet,  197 
Dulwich  College,  99 
"  Duttons,  The  Two,"  74 

Edward  I.,  78,  80,  81,  101 

Edward  77,  85,  88,  131 

Edward  III.,  101,  105,  131 

Edward  VI.,  135,  143 

Elizabeth,  Queen,  as  Cynthia,  119 

English  Dramatic   Companies,  41  n., 

96  n. 

Ephemeris  Chrisometra,  1 20 
Essaies  of  Montaigne,  191,  222 
Essex,  Earl  of,  140,  154,  175-78,  216 
Essex  faction,  73 
Euthymia  Raptus,  I2O 
Every  Man  out  of  his  Humour,   108, 

220 

Faerie  Queen,  The,  161 

Fair  Em,  95,  105 

Falconbridge,  as  Sir  John  Perrot,  1 33-34 

Falstaff,  Sir  John,  181,  182,  206,  215 


Famous    Victories  of  Henry    V.,  200, 

202,  215 

Farewell  to  Folly,  95,  168 
Feis,  Jacob,  74 
Field,  Theophilus,  Bishop  of  Llandaff, 

1 60 

First  Fruites,  92,  196 
Fleay,  F.  G.,  66,  74,  80,  95,  96,  107 
Fleet  wood,   Recorder,  as  an  enemy  of 

the  players,  1 1  ;  44,  46  ;  as  Burghley's 

gossip,  49 
Florio,  John,  15  ;  as  Falstaff's  original, 

1 8  ;    91,    92,    1 08  ;    as    Landulpho, 

122,  123;    125,  157-60,  183-91;    as 

Parolles,    171,    193;    201;    signs  as 

"Resolute,"  221 
Fluellen,  182,  191 
Four  Plays  in  One,  87 
Froude,  James  Anthony,  I,  16 

Gardiner,  S.  R.,  I,  16 

Golding,  Arthur,  118 

Gray's  Inn,  156,  172 

Greene,  Robert,  5,  12,  13,  14,  15,  30, 
35,  69,  80,  85,  88,  92,  94  ;  as  Roberto, 
103;  106,  1 10,  117,  130,  151,  169 

Greg,  W.  W.,  101  n. 

Groats-worth  of  Wit,  A,  5,  15,  IO2, 
no,  117,  150 

Grooms  of  the  Privy  Chamber,  58 

Halliwell-Phillipps,  J.  O.,  43,  45,  50, 

68 

Hall's  Chronicles,  141 
Halpin,  Rev.  J.  H.,  15,  159,  161 
Hamlet,  4,  81,  86,  105,  107,  198 
Harriot,  Thomas,  115,  I2O 
Hart,  Joan,  36 
Hart,  John,  Lord   Mayor  of  London, 

72 

Harvey,  Gabriel,  92 
Hatton,  Sir  Christopher,  138-39,  140 
Heneage,  Sir  Thomas,  36 ;   as  Lafeu, 

171 ;  189 

Henry  IV.,  80,  198 
Henry  IV.,  Part  I.,   199,   200,   202, 

203,  204 

Henry  IV.,  Part  77,  32,  197,  199,  203 
Henry  V.,  80,  121 
Henry  VI.,  Part  L,  7,  14,  77,  7§>  I3*. 

147 

Henry  VI.,  Part  III.,  7,  87,  88 
Henry  VIII.,  134,  135 


INDEX 


259 


Henslowe,  Philip,  6,  8,  10,  n,  38,  59, 

61,  69,  70,  82 

Heralds,  The  College  of,  32,  90,  92 
Highway  to  Heaven,  The,  104 
Histriomastix,  93,  108,  114,  116,  117, 

118,  119,  167 

Holinshed's  Chronicles,  141 
Honour  of  the    Garter,  92,   113,  115, 

117 
Howard  of  Effingham's  company,  Lord 

Charles,  at  Ipswich,  1591,  60 
Howe's  Additions  to  Stowe's  Chronicles, 

"H.  S.,"  217-18,  219 

Hunsdon,  Lord,  9,  10,  43,  46,  50 

Hunsdon's  company,  Lord,  42,  45, 
48;  at  Ludlow,  49;  53,  55;  dis- 
appear from  records,  55 

Hyde,  John,  43,  45 

Hymns  to  the  Shadow  of  Night,  93, 
115,  116,  118,  124,  128,  186 

Iliad,  Homer's,  197 

Intonsi  Catones,  125,  126,  219 

Jacques,  134 
Jacquespierre,  21 
"J.  F.,"  217-18,  219 
fames  I.,  186,  221 
[aquenetta,  206 
feffes,  Humphrey,  87,  147 
[ones,  Richard,  8,  62,  65,  102 
fonson,  Ben,  90,  93,    108,   109,    147, 
1 86,  220 

Keats,  John,  19,  31 

Kempe,  William,  29,  55,  60,  83,  126 

Kildare,  Countess  of,  166 

Kinde  Heartes  Dreame,  150,  152 

King  John,*,  17,  34,  80,  83,  131,  132, 

!33,  139,  146,  152,  172 
King  Lear,  3 

King  of  the  Fairies,  The,  103,  104 
Kyd,  Thomas,  107,  117,  131 

"  Lanam  and  his  fellowes,"  51 

Laneham,  John,  43,  51,  58 

Langley,  William,  13 

Leases,  Elizabethan,  43 

Lee,  Sir  Sidney,  6  n.,  46  n. 

Leicester's  company,  Earl  of,  5,  9,  13  ; 
at  Stratford,  29 ;  43,  45 ;  52 :  at 
Dover,  54  ;  disappear  from  records, 
55  ;  55>  57,  58,  59,  66,  67,  84 


Leicester,  Earl  of;  death,  29;  49,  154, 

'73-75 

Leicester's  musicians,  Earl  of,  9,  54 

Leicester  Records,  City  of,  8 

Life  of  Jack  Wilton,  128 

Lodge,  Thomas,  1 14  n. 

Loftus,  Archbishop,  138 

Love's  Laboiir's  Lost,  8,  83,  116,  119, 
121,  152,  166,  168,  170,  197,  206 

Love's  Labour's  Won,  8,  83,  123,  162, 
170,  171 

Lucrece,  13,  82;  dedication,  128;  153 

Lucy,  Sir  Thomas,  alleged  deer  pre- 
serves, 32 

Malvolio,  182 

Manners,  Roger,  156,  179 

Markham,  Gervase,  128 

Marlowe,  Christopher,   12,  30,  80,  85, 

88;    as    "Merlin,"    95;     as    "the 

cobbler,"  101  ;  107,  131 
Marston,  John,  93,  109,  119,  185,  186 
Martin  Marprelate  Controversy,  72 
Martin's  Month's  Mind,  51 
Mary,  Queen,  135-36 
Mary,  Queen  of  Scots,  178 
Master  of  the  Revels'  company,  the,  64 
Measure  for  Measure,  198 
Menalcas,  161 
Menaphon,  Greene's,  67,  98,  IO2,  107, 

118 

Merchant  of  Venice,  The,  121 
Meres,  Francis,  31,  193,  199 
Merry  Wives  of  Windsor,  171 
Metamorphosis  of  Ajax,  51 
Midsummer  Night's  Dream,  A,  8,  83, 

121,  152,  168 
Miles,  Robert,  76 
Minto,  Prof.  William,  126 
"Mirabella,"  161,  162 
Montague,  Lady,  169-70 
Montague,  Viscount,  155,  169-70 
Moral  of  Man's  Wit,  104 
Morgann,  Maurice,  181,  202 
Murray,  John  Tucker,  9  n.,  41  n. 

Nashe,  Thomas,  7,  12,  14,  67,  69,  78 
80,  92,  94,  98,  100,  102,  104,  107 
108,  117,  128,  130,  169 

Never  too  Late  to  Mend,  98,  109 

News  Out  of  Purgatory,  5 1 

Nic hoi's  Progresses,  168-69 

Nightwork,  Jane,  213 

Nine  Worthies,  The,  195,  197 


260     SHAKESPEARE'S    LOST   YEARS 


Northumberland,  Earl  of,  115 
Nottingham's  company,  Lord,  127 

Oldcastle,  Sir  John,  200,  215,  217 

O'Roughan,  Denis,  138 

Outlines  for  the  Life  of  Shakespeare, 

45 

Ovid's  Banquet  of  Sense,  120,  124,  130 
Ovid's  Elegies ',  118 
Oxford,  Earl  of,  190 

Palladis  Tamia,  199 
Parolles,  18,  171,  206 
Peckham,  Edward,  75 
Peele,  George,   12,  31,  78,  79,  80,  81, 
92,  98  ;  as  Tully,  98,  99  ;  101,   113, 

"7,  131 

Pembroke,  Earl  of,  136,  148 

Pembroke's  company,  Earl  of,  7,  12, 
13,  H,  57,  7i,  75,  76,  84,  85  ;  pawn 
their  apparel,  86 ;  plays,  86  ;  107, 

"3 

Penelope's  Web,  106 

Perrot,  Sir  John,  1 34-39  ;  recalled  from 

Ireland,  138;  death  of,  139 
Perrot,  Sir  Thomas,  139 
Phillip  II.  of  Spain,  138,  139 
Pierce  Penniless,  51 
Pipe  Rolls,  the,  56,  73 
Plague,  the,  85 
Planetomachia,  106 
Pope,  Thomas,  29,  55,  60,  83 
Privy  Council,  Acts  of  the,  56,  73 
Prodigal  Child,  The,  120,  123 
Prodigal  Son,  The,  123 
Puritanism,  132 

Queen's  company,  Old  Plays  of  the,  14, 

74 
Queen's  company,  the,  6,   II,  43,  46, 

48,  50,  51,  53,  58,  59,  75,  84,  131, 

146,  147 
Queen's  progress  to  Cowdray  and  Tich- 

field,  the,  37,  119,  165 
Queen's  tumblers,  the,  56  n. 
Quickly,  Mistress,  200,  204 

Raleigh,  Sir  Walter,  115,  154,  175,  185 
Richard  II.,  8,  80,  83,  88,  131,  146 
Richard  III.,  8,  80,  83 
Romeo  and  Juliet,  152 
"Rosalinde,"  160,  161,  162 
Roscius,  98,  102 
Rose,  Edward,  142 


Rose  Theatre,  the,  6,   10,   n,  51,  59, 

61,  69,  70,  76,  81,  146 
Rowe,  Nicholas,  67,  127,  215,  216 
Roydon,    Matthew,    15,    31,    93,    109, 

H4n.,  124,  125,  167,  168,  184,  200, 

218 

Saexberht,  20 

Saunder,  Nicholas,  158 

Scapula,  24 

Schlegel,  198 

School  of  Shakespeare,  95 

Second  Fruites,  123,  164,  196,  203,  205, 

206  ;  extracts  from,  207-14 
Seven  Deadly  Sins,  The,  147 
Shakespeare  families,  19  ;  the  name,  19 
Shakespeare,  Hamnet,  26 
Shakespeare,  John,  21,  25  ;  applies  for 

grant  of  arms,  32 
Shakespeare,  Judith,  26 
Shakespeare,  Richard,  of  Snitterfield, 

21 

Shakespeare,  William ;  as  Burbage 
servitor,  13  ;  brothers  and  sisters  of, 
19  ;  Norman  origin,  19  ;  his  mother, 
22  ;  as  Johannes  factottim,  22  ;  boy- 
hood, 24  ;  marriage,  26  ;  leaves  Strat- 
ford, 28  ;  alleged  poaching  adventure, 
30  ;  return  to  Stratford  in  1597,  30  j 
grant  of  arms,  30  ;  "  Shakespeare's 
boys,"  35  ;  "rude  groome,"  35  ;  'a 
bonded  servitor,  67  ;  early  training 
with  Lord  Hunsdon's  and  the  Lord 
Admiral's  companies,  68  ;  in  kingly 
parts,  8 1  ;  co-operates  with  Marlowe, 
88  ;  leader  of  Pembroke's  company, 
88  ;  Groom  of  the  Privy  Chamber, 
91  ;  as  an  "idiot  art-master,"  105  ; 
alluded  to  as  a  serving  man,  108 ; 
as  Mullidor  in  Never  too  Late,  109  ; 
Chandos  portrait  of,  no;  rejoins 
Chamberlain's  company,  126 ;  in- 
dicated as  "W.  S.,"  an  "old 
actor,"  129;  distrust  of  Florio,  187 

Shallow,  Justice,  213 

Shaxper,  19 

Sheffield's  company,  Lord,  62,  63 

Shepheards  Calendar,  The,  159,  160, 
163 

Shepherds  Slumber,  The,  168 

Sidley,  Ralph,  109 

Sidney,  Lady,  140,  178 

Sidney,  Sir  Robert,  216 

Simpson,  Richard,  74,  95,  114,  116 


INDEX 


261 


Sinkler,  John,  87,  147 

Smith,   Mr.  J.  M.,  36 

Smithe,  Humprey,  47 

Sonnets,  The,  17,  82 

Southampton,  Countess  of,  171,  189 

Southampton,  Earl  of,  13,  17,  1 8,  36, 
74,  91 ;  as  Mavortius,  12 1  ;  124,  126  ; 
bounty  to  Shakespeare,  127 ;  153, 
156,  164,  167,  172;  early  relations 
with  Essex,  176 ;  as  Bertram,  189  ; 
194,  216 

Spencer,  Gabriel,  86,  87  ;  death  of,  90  ; 

147 

Spenser,  Edmund,  30,  162 
Spicer,  Rose,  159-60 
Stanhope,  Sir  Thomas,  155 
Stanley,  Sir  William,  138 
Star  Chamber,  the,  45 
Stopes,  Mrs.  C.  C.,  39  n.,  76 
Strange,  Lord,  55 
Strange's  company,  Lord,  6,  9,  n,  12, 

52,  53,  57,  59,  74,  82,  83,  95,  107, 

126,  147 
Strange's   tumblers,    Lord,  6,    55,  56, 

59,  67,  84 

Stratford  Free  Grammar  School,  23 
Stratford-on-Avon,  5,  25 
Sussex's  company,  Earl  of,  12,  14,  57  ; 

disrupted,  86-87 
Swan  Theatre,  the,  13 
"  Symons  and  his  fellowes,"  56 

Talbot  Scenes,  7,  14,  78,  80 

Taming  of  a  Shrew,  The,  86,  IO2,  105, 

107 

Tarleton,  Richard,  43,  50,  96 
Tears  of  Peace,  The,  116,  120,  121 
Tempest,  The,  3 

"Temple  Garden"  Scene,  the,  79 
Theatre,  the,  6,  9,  n,  36,  39,  44,  46, 

48,  50,  51,  52,  53,  72,  75,  77,  81,  106 
Three  Ladies  of  London,  The,  95 
Three   Lords  and  Three  Ladies,  The, 

95 
Tichfield  House,  Queen's  progress  to, 

37,  165 

Tilney,  Edmund,  Master  of  the  Revels, 
43,  59,  96 


Timon  of  Athens,  3 

Titus  Andronicus,  12,  14,  86 

Titus  and  Vespasian,  12 

Troilus  and  Cressida,    114,   I2O,   195, 

197 
Troublesome  Raigne  of  King  John,  The, 

132,  140,  143,  146 
True  Tragedie  of  the  Duke  of  York,  The, 

7,85,87,88,  113,  147 
Twelfth  Night,  121 

Twelve  Labours  of  Hercules,  The,  103 
Two  Gentlemen  of  Verona,  The,  8,  83, 

152 
Tyburn  "  T,"  90 

Valdracko,  106 

Venus  and  Adonis,   13,  82,  114,    Il8, 

119,  127,  128,  151,  152,  153,  180 
Venus'1  Tragedy,  106 
Vere,  Lady  Elizabeth,  155,  179 
Vernon,  Elizabeth,  177,  180,  194,  198 
Volumnia,  a  reflection  of  Shakespeare's 
mother,  23 

Wallop,  Sir  Henry,  138 

Walsingham,  Sir  Francis,  178 

War  of  the  Theatres,  the,  15 

Wars  of  the  Roses,  79 

Williams,  Sir  Roger,  as  Fluellen,  191, 

192 
Willobie  his  Avisa,  93,  125,  129,  184, 

186,  187 

Wilson,  Robert,  43,  58,  95,  96,  98 
Winter's  Tale,  A,  3 
Wood,  Anthony,  157 
Woodward,  Joan,  9 
Worcester,  Earl  of,  61,  63,  64 
Worcester's   company,   Earl  of,    8,   9, 

10,   61,  62  ;    in  trouble  at  Ipswich 

and  Leicester,  63 
Worldeof  Wordes,  A,  15,  94,  108,  158, 

185,  188,  196,  217 
Wriothesley,    Henry.       See    Earl    of 

Southampton 

Wriothesley,  Thomas,  Earl  of  South- 
ampton, 153 

Yorke,  Edmund,  Jesuit,  180 


PRINTED   BY 

MORRISON   AND  GIBB  LIMITED 
EDINBURGH 


RETURN  TO  the  circulation  desk  of  any 
University  of  California  Library 
or  to  the 

NORTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 
Bldg.  400,  Richmond  Field  Station 
University  of  California 
Richmond,  CA  94804-4698 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 
2-month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calling 

(510)642-6753 
1-year  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing  books 

to  NRLF 
Renewals  and  recharges  may  be  made  4  days 

prior  to  due  date 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 


LD  2l-10om.8),34 


Shakesnea 

.                T                 •*        * 

re's  lost  yea 

rs     cop.  2 

in  -Ljonaon 

;  / 

NOV    3  19; 

: 

Wm  193< 

3CT  1^1937 

08 

P^  9   1  W 

\j\$ 

«*^   19^1 

901582 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


